TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anctioned to the Appellant vide Order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Gauhati. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of Branded Chewing Tobacco classifiable under Chapter Heading 2404 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant is having a manufacturing unit at the industrial Complex, Bonda, Guwahati-781026. The Appellant is duly registered under the Central Excise Act and paying the Central Excise duty under the terms and conditions of Notification No. 32/99 dated 08.07.1999. 3. In the year 1999, the Central Government exercising its power under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove referred period. The Appellant in order to claim the refund for the said period amounting to Rs. 3,96,27,347/- submitted the requisite documents alongwith the proof of payments to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 07.09.2021 was issued to the Appellant for denying the benefit of Exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 and consequential rejection of refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,96,27,347/. The said Show Cause Notice was challenged by the Appellant before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide Writ Petition No. 1384/2002. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court directed the Customs Authorities to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after grant of proper opportunity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delayed payment of refund. The Appellant against the said Order preferred an appeal to the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Excise and Service Tax (NER), Guwahati. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the Appeal of the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 7. The Ld. Advocate Shri Anurag Mishra appeared on behalf of the Appellant and submitted that the provisions of Section 11BB are fully applicable to the present case as the Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 did not restrict application of Sections and Rules provided under the Central Excise Law. He also submitted that the Notification 32/99 cannot be read independently and it has been wrongly he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court reported at 2017 (349) E.L.T. A89 (S.C.), which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Appellant is entitled for refund of interest immediately after 3 (three) months from the date of submission of refund under Section 11BB. 9. Shri J. Chattopadhyay, Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department contended that in the case of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. UOI reported at 2018 (362) E.L.T. 776 (Gau.) under similar facts and circumstances of the case allowed the interest on delayed payment of refund under Section 11BB but the Department has preferred S.L.P. against the said Order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein detailed conditions, safeguard and limitation has been provided for giving the effect to the said Exemption Notification. The said Notification does not have any provisions for grant of any interest and therefore, in absence of legal provisions in the said Notification, he rejected the refund of interest under Section 11BB. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order dated 28.04.2015 upheld the findings of the Learned Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the grounds taken by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner are identical to the case referred by the Learned Advocate. 12. The Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of M/s Amalgamated Plantations (P.) Ltd., Vs. UOI reported at 2013 (296) E.L.T. 30 (Gau.) has held as under- "32. Thus, i....