Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (5) TMI 1188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the present case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of Menthol, Menthol Crystal's and DMO and was availing area based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002 dated 14.11.2002. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 5,72,340/- vide letter dated 28.10.2010 on account of balance lying in their personal ledger account (PLA) which was pending unutilized due to withdrawal of duty vide Notification No. 10/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010. The Respondent did not sanction refund claim inspite of repeated reminders made by the appellants. In the meantime, a case was made out against the appellant on the allegation that the appellant was not engaged in physical manufacturing of the goods and therefore, show cause notice dated 24.09.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is payable after the expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of application. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that the competent authority was not in a position to decide refund claim for the said period when the issue of self credit was pending for investigation. He further submitted that this ground for rejection is not provided in the statute. In support of his claim of interest on delayed refund, he relied upon the following decisions:- • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) • Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. In Customs Appeal No. 60214 of 2022 • Impressive Mana....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....il to the revenue. 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 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 basi....