AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed an appeal against the said order. 2. Appellant had filed a refund claim on 27.09.2006 under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax by section 83 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, claiming refund of excess service tax paid by them during the period October 2005 to December 2005 amounting to Rs. 92,88,777/-. The said refund claim was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 19.10.2007, as unsubstantiated because the required documents including the invoices were not filed and produced before him for proper scrutiny of the refund claim. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, appellant filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeal). After hearing the appellants on 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t have filed cross objections against each other appeals. Both the appeals and both cross objections are being taken up simultaneously for consideration and disposal. 4. Have heard Shri Mihir Deshmukh Advocate for the Appellant and Shri M K Sarangi/Shri Dilip Shinde Authorized Representatives for the department. 5. Arguing for the appellants learned advocate submitted that as per Section 11B read with Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 interest for delay in payment of refund claimed and sanctioned is admissible. In terms of the said section, interest is payable at prescribed rate for any delay beyond three months from the date of filing the refund claim. Since they have filed the refund claim on 27.09.2006 the interest should be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... National Tax Tribunal or any court against an order of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, under sub-section (2) to Section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section." 8. For the purpose of determination of the period for interest thus the date of filing the refund claim becomes essential and needs to be determined. In case where the refund claim has been filed without the supporting documents then in that case, the refund claim cannot be deemed to be filed on the date when it is physically filed with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case though the refund application was filed 27.09.2006, but the same was not substantiated by the proper documents. Accordingly the same was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on this ground vide his order dated 19.10.2007. Commissioner (Appeal) has in his order dated 12.08.2015 observed in para 6 that "I further find that the appellant failed to produce before the adjudicating authority the relevant invoices and other supporting documents for confirming the fact that the so called excess payment had occurred. The applicant had provided only the consolidated work sheet indicating the excess payment. Therefore, the adjudicating authority in its order in original dated 19.10.2007 rejected the refund claim on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms of Section 11BB becomes payable to the appellant only after expiry of three months from the date of submission of supporting documents i.e. 15.02.2011. Similar view has been expressed by this Tribunal in case of Salco Electronics [2009 (241) ELT 227 (T-MUM)] and Steel Authority of India Ltd [2007 (219) ELT 584 (T-Kol)]. Thus the order of Commissioner (Appeal) cannot be faulted on this account and the appeal filed by the Appellant needs to be rejected. 12. Now coming to the appeal filed by the revenue. We are clearly of the opinion that the second order sanctioning the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority was not required as Commissioner (Appeal) has vide order dated 29.04.2011 allowed and sanctioned the refund claim in favour of ....