2016 (11) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant assessee intimated that they would be paying duty under protest. Subsequently, M/s. AASM intimated the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise that a portion of duty paid molasses stored in katcha pits has been sold at a price less than the value adopted at the time of payment of duty and accordingly requested for taking credit of Rs. 4,67/259/-. A show cause notice dated 24.10.96 was issued and subsequently, the Asst. Commissioner rejected their claim of refund of Rs. 4,67,259/- under Section 4 of Central Excise Act/ 1944, vide Order-in-Original dated 24.06.1997. 2. Similarly, during the year 97-98, under similar circumstances refund claim of Rs. 19,37,010/- was made. After issuance of show cause notice, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tanjavur, vide Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2001, rejected the refund claim of Rs. 19,37,010/- under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Being aggrieved by these orders, assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 187 & 198/2001 dated 28.09.2001, rejected the appeals. Being aggrieved by the order of the Id. Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt of the Department. 8. Moreover, the words "relevant date" are defined in Explanation (B) under Section II-B Sub-clause (eb) under Explanation (B) defines a relevant date to mean the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment in case where the duty on excise is paid provisionally under the Act. Therefore the claim of the petitioner for refund cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation. 9. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the excess duty payable to the petitioner, after appropriating the duty in respect of the goods actually sold with reference to their sale value within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 4. Abiding by the Hon'ble High Court's Order, the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Tanjavur, vide Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2010, sanctioned refund of Rs. 24,04,269/- in terms of Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. While the grant of refund was a relief to the assesse, the delay involved there was not compensated with interest and therefore, the assessee again preferred an appeal before the I-du Commissioner (Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2009. Refund was sanctioned on 22.03.2010 well within the time frame of three months from the date of receipt of the appellant's refund application based on the above order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 0.4.2 In view of the above, the appellants are not eligible for the interest on the refund amount sanctioned. Therefore, the question of payment of interest does not arise in this case. In the result, the order of the lower authority is sustainable without any interference." Being aggrieved by the order of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on the issue of interest under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. The LD. Counsel Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee narrated the entire facts and submitted that this is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. He submits a compilation of documents ten, SCNs, OIO, OTA, Tribunal's final order, Hon'ble High court of Madras order, OIO dated 22.3.2010. He relied on the following citations: 1. Rama Vision Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut 2004 (170) ELT (Tris-LB_  2. CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Olympic Synthetics 2009 236 (ELT 536 (T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nctioned, in this case as refund has been sanctioned on 22.03.2010 well within the time frame of three months from the date of receipt of the appellant's refund application based on the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the present appeal before CESTAT is also liable for rejection." 7. The written Submission dated 19-02-2016 filed is to the effect that the refund had arisen as a result of duty paid on molasses that in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs Union of India reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the order of refund was not made by the sanctioning authority but in the present case the refund was rejected and finalized; that as per provision of section 11A(5) read with Explanation (B) (ec) to this section filing the refund claim together with a copy of the High Court Order under cover of their letter dated 15.12.2009 which was received by the sanctioning authority on 23.12.2009 and the refund was sanctioned on 22.03.2010 which was within three months from the date of receipt of the claim from the appellants, consequent to the High Court order. 8. Heard the above arguments of both sides and also perused the connected records. The....