2019 (12) TMI 715

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re-rolled products of steel and were brought under the annual capacity of production scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 25.07.1997. The Commissioner has fixed the annual capacity of the production at 21,107.174 MT for the financial year 1997-98 and directed the appellant to pay the duty fixed as per formula under Rule 96ZP (3) of Central Excise Rules. The appellants were issued various SCNs from time to time demanding differential duty. In the meantime, the appellant had paid some adjudication levies and pre-deposit in pursuance of Commissioner's OIO No. 2/2004 dated 31.03.2004 against which the assessee filed an appeal in CESTAT, Bangalore. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.630/2006 dated 23.03.2006 allowed the assessee's appeal. The Department filed an appeal against the Order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which was held vide Order dated 09.11.2010 to be non-maintainable before the Hon'ble High Court. The Department's appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed as delayed and time barred vide Order dated 31.01.2011. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund application on 25.07.2006 for Rs. 31,38,685/- which was subsequently....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submission, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, Bangalore reported in 2009 (240) ELT 124 (Tri. Bang.). The appeal against this judgment filed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was dismissed being non-maintainable. The appellant has also relied upon the following decisions: • Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI, 2009 (234) ELT 45 (Bom.). • Areva T & D India Ltd. Vs CC, Chennai, 2013 (290) ELT 496 (Mad.). • Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, 2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC). • Goldstone Engineering Ltd. Vs UOI, 2005 (181) ELT 11 (AP). 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order but fairly conceded that the Commissioner (A) though has allowed the interest on delayed refund but has not mentioned the date from which that interest is to be calculated. He further submitted that as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the appellant is entitled to refund from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. He also referred to Explanation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner (A), the appellant brought to the notice of the Commissioner (A) that they filed the refund claim on 25.07.2006 as admitted in Para 2 of the SCN dated 23.10.2006 and the decision of the Tribunal F.O. No. 22700/2017 dated 06.11.2017. Further, I find that as per the Revenue, the appellant has moved refund application on 24.05.2018 after Final Order of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2017 and refund was sanctioned on 21.12.2018. This contention of the Revenue is not tenable in law in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant and also relied upon by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. Here it is pertinent to reproduce the findings of the Commissioner (A) which is contained in Para 12, 13 & 14 as under: "12. I find that the Supreme Court, High Courts, Tribunals and Revisionary Authority (GOI) have consistently held that interest on sanction of rebate/refund is required to be paid after 3 months from the Original refund/rebate applications. The Revisionary Authority, Govt. of India (JS, RA) in BPM Industries Ltd.: 2011 (128) ELT 557 (GOI) has held that interest is payable from the date immediately after the expiry of 3 months from the date of re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable. 10. It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of interest. Simultaneously, Board would like to draw attention to Circular No. 398/31/98-CX., dated 2-6-98 [1998 (100) E.L.T. T16] wherein Board has directed that responsibility should be fixed for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application. Accordingly, jurisdictional Commissioners may devise a suitable monitoring mechanism to ensure timely disposal of refund/rebate claims. Whereas all necessary action should be taken to ensure that no interest liability is attracted, should the liability arise, the legal provision for the payment of interest should be scrupulously followed." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Thus, ever since Section 11BB was inserted in the Act with effect from 26th May 1995, the department has maintained a consistent stand about its interpretation. Explaining the intent, import and the manner in which it is to be implemented, the Circulars clearly state that the relevant date in this regard is the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Section 11B(1) of the Act. 13. We, thus find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in fact ....