TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case, as stated in the appeal memorandum, are as follows: 2.1. The appellant M/s.IDLExplosives Ltd., (formerly known as Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.) filed a refund claim under Sec.11B of the Central Excise Act,1944, claiming refund of excise duty paid, on quality control samples during the period 1986-87 to 2004-05. The said refund application was filed by the appellant on 13.06.2005, with the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Rourkela Division, pursuant to the Order-in-Appeal No.162/BBSR-II/2004 dt.06.08.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that no duty is payable by the appellant on the quality control samples, used for testing purposes within the factory. The refund was sanctioned by the Dy. Commissioner, Centra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of three months from the receipt of the application, and as such, the request for release of interest, does not arise. 2.2 Aggrieved by the said decision of the Asst. Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide the Order-in-Appeal No.24/CE/RKL/GST/2018 dt.20.02.2018, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 3. The appeal was posted for hearing on 17.10.2019. Sri S. C. Mohanty, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Sri K. Chowdhary, A.R. appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 3.1 At the outset Sri Mohanty, the Ld. advocate for the appellant, submitted that the subject refund claim was originally filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the division office, the appellant was asked to provide copies of the same. The appellant complied by submitting a copy of the original Refund Application dt.13.06.2005 on 19.07.2016 (acknowledged on 22.07.2016 by the Division Office). But the Asst. Commissioner in his Communication dt.28.12.2016 has erroneously stated that the refund application was filed by the appellant on 22.07.2016. The Commissioner (Appeals), ignoring the factual aspects and the ratio of decisions of the Hon'ble supreme Court, passed the impugned order dt.20.02.2018, denying payment of interest to the appellant. 4. Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Respondent reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has filed the refund claim of Rs. 16,13,588/- on 22.07.2016, which was correct and complete in all respect, based on the decision of Order-in-Appeal No.84/CE/RKL/2016 dt.22.02.2016. So the actual date of refund application is 22.07.2016 not the application initially filed i.e. 13.06.2005, as claimed by the appellant. Hence, I hold that the contention of the appellant is not sustainable and the interest claimed by the appellant is also not maintainable in the instant case." 7. From the available records and the detailed date chart furnished by the appellant at page 8 - 11 of the appeal paper book, I find that the refund application was filed by the appellant on 13.06.2005. The s....