TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on payment of duty. In September, 2003 when the unit was audited and an audit report was issued inter alia stating that the appellant was required to pay excise duty on some additional amount. The assessee contested the audit objections. However, thereafter, they paid the excise duty of Rs. 19,44,379/- and intimated to the department on 03.04.2006. The department on 03.01.2007 sent them a letter directing them to pay interest on the duties paid by them. In response, on 24.01.2007 the appellant declined to pay the interest and also asked for refund of amount already paid on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to them. In response Asst. Commissioner sent letter dated 20.02.2007, directing the assessee to pay interest. Thereafter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receiving demand notice under Sec.11A can be considered as payment under Sec.11A(2B) as voluntary payment during the relevant period. c) Whether any interest under Sec.11AB is payable on the amount so paid. d) Whether the assessee is entitled to refund of the amount paid by them on the ground that no show cause notice has been issued to them. 5. As far as the first issue is concerned, the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions observed as follows: "We have seen from the record, especially from the letter written by the Petitioner himself stating that after audit objections certain amounts were paid by him towards the department. There is nothing on record to show that the department coerced the petitioner to pay the said am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction as applicable during the relevant period read as follows: "(2B) Where any duty or excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person, chargeable with the duty, may pay the amount of duty 71 [on the basis of his own ascertainment of such duty or on the basis of duty ascertained by a Central Excise Officer] before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty, and inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty so paid: Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of short payment of duty, if any, which in his o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fulfilled and therefore, the payment cannot be said to be payment under Sec.11A(2B). If the payment is not under Sec.11A(2B) the demand of interest under Sec.11AB as per the explanation (2) to Sec.11A(2B) does not apply. In a similar case, in the case of Innovassynth Technologies (India) Ltd [2016 (2) TMI 285 (Tri-Mumbai)], in which one of us (Shri M.V. Ravindran) was a member, held as follows: "11. In the present case, when the period of limitation had already expired and when the extended period beyond one year was not available to the department as held by the Commissioner himself in his order-in-original, to our mind the respondent was not liable to pay even the basic duty. But for the respondent voluntarily making payment of such dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory interest. Surely, this was not the intention of the legislature while sub-section (2B) was introduced in Section 11A of the Act." 9. Similarly, in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd [2012 (285) ELT 336 (Guj.)] the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat held that Sec.11A(2B) is applicable only for demand within normal period of limitation and if assessee had not voluntarily made payment it was not open for department to recover it. In that view, assessee is not liable to pay interest. As the present case is identical to the above cases, we hold that no interest is chargeable from the appellant. Accordingly, Order-in-Appeal No. 04/2008 dated 28.01.2008 in Appeal E/162/2008 is set aside. 10. Thus, we find that the appellant had paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etc, the Asst. Commissioner has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the Appellants could not furnish any authentic documents in supports of their claim. As seen from impugned OIO, the Appellants were given ample opportunities to furnish documentary evidence in support of their refund claim, but it appears that they have not backed up their claim with credible documents. They have managed to produce only photo copies of computer printout of ledger account and photo copies of some other documents. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellants have furnished credible documents before the lower adjudicating authority co-relating the refundable amount, as claimed by them. In these circumstances, I hold that the Asst. Commiss....