TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 974
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial on record. 3. The material on record discloses that during the period from 30.06.2010 to 20.09.2017, the petitioner filed refund claims, which were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner during the period from 28.03.2018 to 19.05.2020, respectively. It is contended that in view of the inordinate delay and latches on the part of the respondent in not processing the refund claims of the petitioner within the prescribed period of three months from the date of receipt of the applications of the petitioner as contemplated under Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the said Act of 1944"), the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.08.2020 seeking payment of interest on the delayed refund by the respondent. It is submitted that instead of complying with the request of the petitioner, respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20.10.2020 calling upon the petitioner as to why the request for grant of interest should not be rejected. In response thereto, petitioner reiterated its request and invited the attention of the respondent to the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1944, in particular, Sections 11-B and 11-BB of the said Act of 1944 and also cite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so clarified with respect to circulars issued in this regard including the Circular dated 01.10.2002. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments will indicate that there is no distinction between intentional delay or unintentional delay on the part of the respondent in passing refund orders and the period of three months prescribed in Section 11-BB is mandatory and non-passing of refund order within the prescribed period of three months from the date of submission of the refund application would automatically and straight away amount to failure to discharge statutory duty/obligation by the refund sanctioning authority consequent upon which, the petitioner would be entitled to interest under Section 11-BB on the amounts refunded to it. It is therefore clear that in the instant case, in the light of the undisputed fact that the respondent has not sanctioned refund within the prescribed period of three months from the date of submission of the refund request by the petitioner, the respondent would be liable to pay interest in favour of the petitioner on the amounts ordered to be refunded in favour of the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondent h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the appeal would arise for consideration, he prays for framing of same and also seeks for same being answered in favour of the revenue. 4. Respondent herein had exported iron ore fines and was required to pay differential duty of customs @ Rs.250/- per metric tonne if the Fe content was more than 60%. Test conducted disclosed that content was 62.1% and as such respondent was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.55,00,000/-. Not being satisfied with the analysis report, respondent sought for sealed counter samples and bank guarantee issued by the respondent to the extent of Rs.13,75,000/- was invoked. Show cause notice issued on 08.08.2008 was adjudicated by original authority in O-I-O No.13/2009 (Commissioner) and by order dated 22.09.2009 proceedings came to be dropped. It is thereafter refund claim for Rs.13,75,000/- plus interest was filed on 26.10.2009, which was returned by the authorities on 05.11.2009 on account of certain defects and it was re-submitted on 23.02.2010, which was returned by the revenue on 04.03.2010 and re-submitted by the appellant on 20.04.2010. However, said application was returned with deficiency memo dated 10.05.2010 for non-compliance of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or revenue chooses for returning the application for compliance of deficiencies and on compliance of deficiencies pointed, such application if adjudicated by the authorities, they cannot be heard to contend that application which was defective would not enable the applicant to claim interest from the date of application. In fact, fresh application filed by the applicant on 16.10.2012 was adjudicated along with earlier application dated 26.10.2009 by treating it as having merged with fresh refund application. Hence, application for refund would not be contrary to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such we are not inclined to admit this appeal, since there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal for being adjudicated. Hence, appeal stands dismissed." 10. A similar view has been taken by the High Courts of Delhi, Madras, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana in the aforesaid judgments referred to supra. In fact, in Hamdard's case supra, the Apex Court has categorically held that it is obligatory on the part of the revenue to intimate the assessee to remove the deficiencies in the application within two days and in any event, if there are still deficiencies....