TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002. Finally the two rebate claims were sanctioned on 2-6-2008 after enactment of Finance Bill, 2008 on 10-5-2008 where clause 83 amended Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with retrospective effect so as to allow rebate of duty paid on excisable goods cleared from factory for export for which refund has been granted under certain notifications issued under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was further found that the rebate claim was sanctioned within one month of enactment of Finance Bill, 2008 and as there were no provision in the law to provide interest for such delay in sanctioning rebate claim as the appellant were not entitled to get rebate claim prior to enactment of Finance Bill, 2008, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim for interest. 3. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2002) i.e. on 10-5-2008. Thus, there was no delay in sanctioning rebate by the department. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. They vide their letter dated 23-7-2012 submitted the following case laws as claimed in their favour : * G.O.I. Order Nos. 206-209/2012-CX., dated 24-2-2012 * G.O.I. Order No. 247/2011-CX., dated 17-3-2011 * Ranbaxy Laboratories v. U.O.I. - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) * U.O.I. v M/s. Jindal Drugs (H.C.). 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 11-10-2012. Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj, authorized signatory appeared on behalf of the respondent who reiterated the defence submission made at para 5 above. Nobody appeared for hearing from department side. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 8. On perusal of records Government observes that the rebate claim of the respondents was submitted on 20-11-2006 and 19-1-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the manufacturer. The said amendment in Rule 18, make such rebate claims admissible during the period 1-3-2002 to 7-12-2006. Government observes that the retrospective validation of admissibility of rebate claims, made the claimant entitled for said rebate claim during the relevant period. The said amendment has not put any bar on payment of interest in terms of Section 11BB for delayed payment of said refund claims. So the time limit provided under Section 11BB for the purpose of computing interest liability has to be adhered to. Interest liability arises when any duty ordered to be refunded under Section 11B(2) is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under Section 11B(1). Since the said amendment has not put any restriction on the payment of interest in terms of Section 11BB, the argument of department that interest will arise after three months of amendment, does not hold good. 9.2 Government notes that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories v. UOI reported in 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CS = 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in its judgment dated 21-10-2011 has settled the issue and categorically held as under : "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; ............. 13. ............. 14. ............. 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made." 9.3 In another case of M/s. Jindal Drugs, Government vide its G.O.I. Order No. 247/2011-CX., dated 17-3-2011 passed in revision application No. 198/184/08-RA-CX, filed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad against order-in-appeal Nos. SRK/455-460/RGD-08, dated 24-7-2008 passed by Commissioner 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 G....