2016 (12) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant is entitle for interest on delayed sanction of refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/07-Cus DATED 14/9/2007. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) denied the interest referring to Board Circular No.6/2008 DATED 28/4/2008 wherein relevant para reads as under:- "4.3. With the extension of time limit and the requirement to file claims on a monthly basis, Board feels that the number of refund claims should be manageable for disposal within the normal period of three months. Further, in the absence of specific provision for payment of interest being made applicable under the said notif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; on delayed sanction of refund. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Chatru Singh, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that levy of special additional duty is provided under Section 3A of Customs Act, 1962 therefore as per the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India [1995(80) ELT 507] provision related to refund shall not apply to the levy of duty under Section 3. In this regard, he also placed reliance on following cases: (a) Collector of C. Ex. Ahmedabad Vs. Orient Fabrics ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e refund, interest would be payable on the amount of refund, in the manner stipulated under Section 27A of the Act. A collective reading of Section 3(8) of the CTA and Sections 27 and 27A of the Act leads to the conclusion that the provisions in the Act concerning refunds and interest on delayed refunds, would equally apply to refund of SAD leviable under Section 3 of the CTA. Circular No.6/2008 to the extent that it seeks to deny a successful applicant for refund of SAD, in terms of Notification No. 102/2007, interest on such refund in terms of Section 27A of the Act, is inconsistent with and ultra vires Section 27A of the Act. 21. Consequently, in the present case, the Department was not justified in denying interest to the Respondent on....




TaxTMI
TaxTMI