TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods, Automation Systems, falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985. They filed a refund claim on 29/12/2011 before the Refund Sanctioning Authority seeking for refund of an amount of Rs. 29,94,278/- under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The same was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to furnish documents in support of the refund claim vide Order-in-Original dt. 27/03/2012. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal dt. 17/10/2012. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner(Appeals), appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Final order No.20500/2018 dt. 12/01/2018 allowed the appeal of the appellant. in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 29/12/2011 for refund of accumulated balance of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006 whereas the Hon'ble CESTAT has allowed the refund claim on the ground that the unit/factory was closed in June 2012, which is totally a different ground and the said finding of the adjudicating authority has been upheld by the first appellate authority. learned counsel further submitted that both the lower authorities have failed to notice that the liability to pay interest arises on the factum of delay in granting the refund, which has nothing to do with the grounds on which the refund is granted. He also submitted that Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not make any distincti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir appeal. He pleaded that the claim is rightly eligible under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The rebate claim was on duty paid on export items and these are not connected to the unutilized credit which is accumulated due to lesser domestic clearance. Further, he requested for more time for additional submissions. Vide their letter dated 21.09.2012, the appellant stated that they had simply asked for refund of credit balance lying in their Cenvat Credit as per Novermber, 2011 ER 1 statement. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim only on technical grounds. They have paid an amount of Rs. 29,47,605/- with interest of Rs. 4,42,737/- with interest of Rs. 95,379/- in cash on 24.12.2010. These amounts were paid under the category o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that in accordance with CESTAT Final order dt. 12/01/2018, the refund was sanctioned vide Order-in-original dt. 02/08/2018 and therefore there is no delay in sanctioning the refund and hence no liability to pay interest arises. 6.1. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, I find that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to the interest on delayed refund under the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is relevant to reproduce Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is reproduced herein below:- Section 11BB. INTEREST ON DELAYED REFUNDS. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder was also rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide order dt. 17/10/2012. Further I find that the Tribunal vide its Final order dt. 12/01/2018 has allowed the appeal of the appellant and in pursuance to the Final order, the original authority sanctioned the refund vide order dt. 02/08/2018 but did not grant interest which was demanded by the appellant for delay in sanctioning the refund. Further I find that the only ground on which the interest has been denied by the original authority and upheld by the appellant authority is that the CESTAT has allowed the appeal on altogether different ground which was not existing at the time of rejection of refund claim. Further I find that the appellant has raised the ground of closure of business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f no avail to the revenue. 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made. 6.3. Further I find that in the case of Jubiliant Biosys Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal has followed the decision of Ranbaxy Labs case and allowed the appeal of the appellant seeking interest for delayed refund. Further I find that in the case of CC Airport & ACC Bangalore Vs. Pfizer products India Pvt. Ltd. [2015(324) E....