2019 (1) TMI 1724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....47,59,801/- being the difference between duty paid and the duty payable on the basis of concessional rate of duty at 50% available in terms of Notification No. 108/81-C.E., dated 24-4-1981. The appellants paid the duty for the period 19-8-84 to 8-11-84 under protest on denial of the benefit by the department. On an appeal, the Tribunal vide its Order No. 1018/90-C, dated 12-9-90 decided in favour of the appellants and held that appellants are entitled to refund. The appellant filed the refund claim on 1-11-90. Meanwhile, the department filed the appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Apex Court in C.A. No. 640/1991, dated 20-2-91 [1991 (55) E.L.T. A67 (S.C.)]. The Asst. Commissioner sanctioned refund of Rs. 46,67,329/- a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 27-9-2002 only and has rejected interest from 26-8-1995 to 27-9-2002. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel takes us through the provisions of Section 11BB which are as follows : "Section 11BB. Interest on delayed refunds. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by Notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hs 5 & 6 of the impugned order are as follows : "5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made. I find that the duty was paid under protest during August, 1984 to November, 1984 and the CESTAT's decision was given in September, 1990 in their favour. The refund had been considered consequent to the decision of the CESTAT but was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on grounds of unjust enrichment. Subsequently, again they had to approach the CESTAT which allowed their claim vide Order, dated 27-9-2002 and the refund of Rs. 47,59,801/- was sanctioned in July, 2006. The provision for payment of interest is contained in Section 11BB which was enacted vide amendment dated 26-5-1995. Therefore, the jurisdic....