TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were also liable to reverse a credit of Rs 91,17,064/- which was availed on electricity sold to group company/ vendor etc. The appellant in their claim dated 05/10/2018, requested the department to adjust this amount payable by them against the consequential refund due and pay the balance amount of Rs 2,09,80,128/-. After some correspondence the claim was returned to the appellant by the department vide letter C No IV/09/56/2018-Refund dated 28/01/2019, on the ground that though proportionate credit had been reversed, the appellant was liable to pay appropriate interest on the said credit reversed by them and for which they had not produced any documentary evidence of payment. The appellant replied vide their letter dated 04/03/2019 stating that that they were also eligible for interest of Rs 1,74,88,805/- under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 (herein after also referred to as 'Act'). Hence the total amount eligible by them was Rs 3,84,68,933/- (2,09,80,128/- + 1,74,88,805/-) of which the interest outstanding of Rs 19,62,599/- may be deducted and an amount of Rs 3,65,06,334/- inclusive of interest be refunded to them. Subsequently the appellant vide letter dated 15/05/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs.91,17,604/- due by the appellant for the period March 2002 to January 2005 to the department vide letters dated 12.11.2018, 27.11.2018 and 1.2.2019. Subsequently after protracted correspondences between the department and the appellant it was found that the appellant had not paid the dues to the Government. The claim was thus returned to the appellant and they have filed a revised refund claim dated 15/05/2019 after paying all dues but received in the office on 21.5.2019. The refund claim was sanctioned on 29.8.2019 by way of RTGS / NEFT account of the appellant and hence the appellant is eligible for interest after a period of three months of filing the revised refund claim only. She also referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Wonder Packaging Industries Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2022-TIOL-492-CESTAT-AHM wherein it was held that interest on refund is payable after three months from the date of the application and consequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and no interest is payable from the date of deposit during investigation. 7. We have heard the parties. We find that the only issue to be considered is the relevant date for calculating the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act, at the relevant time, states that 'Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in such form as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person........'. 7.2 We find that CENVAT credit paid was ordered to be refunded to the applicant as a consequential benefit by Hon'ble CESTAT's Final Order dated 13/08/2018. The same should have been refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section 11B of the Act, which was 05/10/2018. The interest clock would start ticking from that date. The appellants have prayed that the claim for interest on the refund be granted to them from the original date of their deposit of duty under protest, with interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns from any superior officers or to look for instructions in the orders of higher appellate authority for grant of interest. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:- "10. It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739]. 11. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract a Circular dated 1st October 2002, issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, wherein referring to its earlier Circular dated 2nd June 1998, whereby a direction was issued to fix responsibility for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application, the Board has reiterated its earlier stand on the applicability of Section 11BB of the Act. Significantly, the Board has stressed that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act are attracted "automatically" for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supplied) 12. Thus, ever since Section 11BB was inserted in the Act with effect from 26th May 1995, the department has maintained a consistent stand about its interpretation. Explaining the intent, import and the manner in which it is to be implemented, the Circulars clearly state that the relevant date in this regard is the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Section 11B(1) of the Act. 13. We, thus find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in fact the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in U.P. Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. (supra). In the said case, while dismissing the special leave petition filed by the revenue and putting its seal of approval on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, this Court had observed as under : "Heard both the parties. In our view the law laid down by the Rajasthan High Court succinctly in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 4 vide Para 33 : "A close reading of Section 11BB, which now governs the question relating to payment of interest on belated payment of interest, makes it clear th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal of credit under protest as sought by the appellant or the date of filing the revised claim as per the impugned order. The rate of interest payable would also be governed by the relevant interest rate notification issued under the Act and was prevalent at that time. 8. The appellant has relied upon the following judgments in favor of their stand that the relevant date for claiming refund shall be the date on which the amount was deposited, and that interest will be applicable from that date; (a) Fujikawa Power Vs. CCE, Chandigarh vide Final Order No. 61041 and 61042/2019 (b) M/s. Riba Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Panchkula vide Final Order No. 60015/2020 dated 7.1.2020. (c) M/s. Marshall Foundry & Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST, Faridabad vide Final Order No. 61058 to 61062/2019 dated 20/11/2019. We find that the judgment in M/s.Fujikawa Power, Riba Textiles and Marshall Foundary cited above have been passed by Single Judge Benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal and only have persuasive value. With the legal issues having been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Ujjam Bai and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd judgments, cited above, judicial discipline requires us to follow the same. The ....