TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... countries and had used duty paid material, i.e. PP woven sacks which were used for packing of rice and that they were eligible for rebate of duty paid on the packing material used for export. The said claim was returned to the applicant by the said authority on the ground that certain procedural requirements as envisaged under Notification No. 21/2004 CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 were not met. Aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. The said issue was remanded back to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner vide Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2008(V-II) CE dated 20.12.2008 with a direction to decide the issue after giving an opportunity to the applicant by the original authority calling for their explanation as to why the rebate claim should not be rejected as the same did not contain any documentary or, other evidence in support of their plea that the duties on the packing material used in packing of the export goods were paid and the procedure laid down under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 has been followed for claiming the rebate under Section 11B ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 01.11.10. Hence not paying the interest on delayed payment of the subject rebate claim was a clear disobedience of a GOI order on the part of both the lower authorities, thus need to be set aside. 4.2 Deputy Commissioner Kakinada-II had shown a little knowledge about the' CBEC Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX dated 01.10.2002 (reproduced below) passed the Order-in Original in gross disobedience to the Board. "Para 2: In this connection, Board would like to stress that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months The jurisdictional Central Excise Officers are not required to wait for instructions from any superior officers or to look for instructions in the orders of higher appellate authority for grant of interest. " 4.3 If assumed Deputy Commissioner Kakinada-II had confusion as to from which date the interest will be paid to the applicant there were plethora of judgments, to convert the confusion into conclusion (Some of which are sited below). But it seems from the Order-in-Original passed by Deputy Commissioner Kakinada was least b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the expiry of three months of the date of receipt of application for rebate in the Divisional office in terms of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. This very issue is already decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI reported as 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held as under: "9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appeasing below pro viso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central excise or Deputy Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai Zone-II, had upheld the impugned orders-in-appeal and held that in terms of Section 11BB interest is payable after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund / rebate application. Department contested the said GOI Order dated 17.03.11 by filing WP No. 9100/2011 in Bombay High Court who in it's judgment dated 30.01.2012 has upheld the GOI Order No. 247/2011-CX dated 17.03.11. The observations of Hon'ble High Court in para 2,3 of said judgment are reproduced below: "2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the entitlement of the Respondent to a rebate was crystallized only on 6 December 2007 when the notice to show cause was dropped by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The rebate claims were sanctioned within a period of three months thereafter by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) and. hence, no interest was payable On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the law has been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, vs Union of India and consequently no interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of th....