TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals of the respondents/assessees by setting aside the orders-in-original. 2.1 Since the issue involved in all five appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, hence I proceed to decide all five appeals by this common order. Details of the refund claims filed by the respondents/assessees are as under: Appeal No. Name of Party Duty amount Date of 1st Application C/60214/2022 Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd 510417.00 07.07.2017 C/60218/2022 Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd 2287560.00 30.03.2017 C/60215/2022 Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd 14956023.00 26.08.2016 C/60216/2022 Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd 27801977.00 15.05.2017 C/60217/202 Monte Carlo Fashions Ltd 12017289.00 21.07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the assessing authority by rejecting the appeals filed by them. 3.3 The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the respondents/assessees filed the refund claims. After the decision of the CESTAT, the Department sanctioned the refund claims, but ordered that the same to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of bar of unjust-enrichment. 3.4 Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents/assessees filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 21.06.2018 rejected the appeals of the respondents/assessees. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest on the refund filed on the initial date of application as per Section 27(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the claim of respondents/assessees were processed within the time limit of three months and the same was sanctioned as per the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that as per Section 27(2), the Revenue is liable to pay interest from the date of decision of the Tribunal i.e. 02.04.2019. He also submitted that the subject refund claim has been disposed of within period of three months as prescribed under Section 27(A) of the Act and therefore, the respondents/assessees are not entitled to claim the interest on the said refunds. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest as per Section 27(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the applicable rate of interest as prescribed vide notification issued under Section 27(A) from time to time after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application till the date on which the refund has actually been paid. Here, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) contained in para 9 to para 13 which are reproduced herein below: 9. In view of above discussion and judgments cited supra, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and there is no need of any interference in the impugned order. Hence, I dismiss all five appeals filed by the Revenue by upholding the impugned order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made. 16. As a sequitur, C.A.No.6823 of 2010, filed by the assessee is allowed and C.A.Nos.7637/2009 and 3088/2010, preferred by the revenue are dismissed. The jurisdictional Excise officers shall now determine the amount of interest payable to the assessees in these appeals, under Section 11BB of the Act, on the basis of the legal position, explained above. The amount(s), if any, so worked out, shall be paid Document 2 10 within eight weeks from today. Relying on above Order of Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or refund is made, the respondents cannot be heard to contend otherwise. The approach of the respondents, therefore, borders on being contumacious. In the opinion of this court, if the respondent authorities duly follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Courts, such unnecessary litigation could be obviated and precious judicial time of the court would not be wasted and assessees like the petitioner would not be subjected to undue harassment without any justification. The respondent authorities are, therefore, not justified in refusing to grant interest on the rebate claims made by the petitioners in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in C/SCA/19916/2016 JUDGMENT Ranbax....