TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a position to utilize the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs, they filed three refund claims in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said refund claims were filed on 5.12.2005, 17.2.2006 and 30.6.2006. The same were kept pending at the original adjudicating authority level and it is only after the appellants, in 2008, wrote letters to the their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities mentioning that they understand that refund claims have been found to be admissible and since they are interested in getting the amount involved in the refund claim urgently, they will not claim interest which may be due to them on account of delay in consequence of the claims. Accordingly, the refund claims were allowed to them, without i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) wherein in Para 40 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held that there is no estoppel in law against an assessee in taxation matters. Besides this, we also find that the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 484 (S.C.) has held that right conferred under the statute cannot be given up on the basis of concession made by any party to the lis. In our view the ratio of the above judgments of the Apex Court are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, just because the appellant by the letters addressed to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had given up their claim for interest on the amount of refund for the period of delay in sanction of the refund claims, they wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and sanction any deficiency in the refund claim has to be pointed out to the appellant within 15 days of receipt. Inasmuch as in the present case, there was no communication from the department for a period of about two years, the claim of interest cannot be rejected on that ground. Learned advocate has also drawn my attention to the observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier order that it is only in 2008, the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities woke up to the pendency of these refund claims and also on the possibility of having to pay the interest under section 11 BB for the period of delay beyond the period of 3 months from the date of filing of refund claims, further inquiries were made in the year 2008. 7. After having appr....