TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his OIA No.02-2029-21 dated 02.12.2020, set aside the OIO and allowed the Appeal. After this the appellant filed their letter dated 2.7.2021 seeking the refund of the amount which was originally rejected. The Adjudicating authority treated this letter as a fresh Refund claim and issued SCN on various grounds. After due process, vide OIO No.02/2021-22- refunds dated 30.09.2021, he sanctioned Rs. 10,26,92,605/- and rejected the balance refund claim on different grounds. However, while sanctioning this amount, he has not paid any interest to the appellant. For rejecting their request for payment of interest, he has held that the refund claim has been filed on 02.07.2021 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise & CGST Division, Malaviya Nagar, New Delhi [2023 (8) TMI 353 (Delhi H.C)] and CCE & C, Guntur Vs M/s Crane Betel Nut Powder Works [2019 (2) TMI 406 (CESTAT-Hyd)]. In all these decisions, the Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunals have consistently taken a clear view that interest is required to be paid from the date on which the refund claim has been originally / initially filed and not from the date of any favourable Order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, as these case laws are squarely applicable in the present appeal, he prays that the interest may be grated. 4. Learned AR for Revenue relies on the findings of the Lower Authorities and justifies the stand taken by the Department that interest is required to be paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matrix, I find that their subsequent letter dated 02.07.2021 cannot be viewed as a fresh refund claim filed by them, rather it should be taken as a reminder letter for the refund claim which was filed on 17.07.2018 itself. 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Black Berry India Private Ltd., (supra) has held as under: 15. The impugned order is, ex facie, erroneous to the extent it rejects the petitioner's claim for interest. The impugned order sets out a tabular statement as reproduced hereinbefore, clearly stating the dates on which the petitioner had made its claim for refund. There is no cavil that the petitioner would be entitled to the interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Excise Act from the date immediately after the e....