2022 (11) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant are entitled for the interest for delay in sanction of refund of cenvat credit which was reversed in excess to the actual reversal required in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004. 1.2 The brief facts of the case is that by following Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeals on the ground that the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3A)(f) would have adjusted the excess amount on their own by taking credit suo moto, in failure to do so the appellant is not entitled for interest. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant filed the present appeals. 2. Ms. Di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is also governed by section 11 B. She also relied upon the decision in the appellant's own case reported at 2010 (259) ELT 356 (Guj.) wherein even the refund of cenvat in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 is also considered a refund under section 11 B and interest is payable under section 11 BB. The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was upheld by dismissing the Revenue's SLP reported at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there is no dispute regarding sanction of refund as the appellant has been granted the refund of excess reversal of cenvat credit. The Learned Commissioner has denied the claim of interest on the ground that since the appellant were entitled to take the suo moto credit the refund is not governed by section 11 B. I surprised to note that in one hand the department has undisputedly sanctioned the r....