TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LNG is delivered to its promoter off-takers viz. GAIL, BPCL and IOCL. Further, the appellant is responsible for arranging the transportation of LNG from RasGas in Qatar to its own re-gasification terminal at Dahej. In this context, various 'Time Charter Agreements' were signed with the Ship Owners, such as 'Long-term Time Charter Agreement' dated March 31, 2001 with the Consortium of Ship Owners viz. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, for Charter of LNG Tankers for transportation of LNG from RasGas, Qatar to its LNG Terminal at Dahej, Gujarat for a period of 25 years (i.e. period ending April 30, 2028).The Charter of the LNG tankers commenced from 2003 onwards. 2.2 The department was of the view that the transaction entered in respect of Long Term and Short Term Time Charter Agreements are covered under the purview of taxable category of 'Supply of tangible goods for use' services. Hence, as per the department, the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax on the consideration paid by it to the ship owners on reverse charge basis. Accordingly, the appellant was asked to depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that the department has refunded the entire Service Tax and interest vide refund Order dated 27/05/2016. This refund includes interest on delayed refund to the tune of Rs. 5,62,98,330/- (for 855 days from 23/01/2014 to 27/5/2016) out of which Rs.41,76,086/- (Rs. 2,97,12,890 x 6\% x 855/365) (for 855 days from 23/1/2014 to 27/05/2016), relates to interest paid on interest amount. Hence, refund of Rs. 5,21,22,224/- (5,62,98,330 - 41,76,086) (for 855 days from 23/1/2014 to 27/05/2016), pertains to interest on delayed refund of duty amount. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgements to support their case: 1. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. and others vs UP State Electricity Board and others [ (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 772] 2. EBIZ.COM Pvt. Ltd. vs Customs of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax [2017 (49) STR 389 (All)] 3. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs R K Swamy BBDO Advertising (P) Ltd. [2009 (16) STR 177 (Tri-Chennai)] 5. Per contra learned Authorized Representative submits that there was a stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from 08/01/2016 to 11/05/2016 (total 123 days), therefore, the period of stay shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has stated that as per section 11BB, intertest was payable only after vacation of stay by the Supreme Court. At the outset, it would be pertinent to reproduce Section-11BB of the Central Excise Act which reads as under : "11BB. Interest on delayed refunds: if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under subsection (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant at such rate [not below that five per cent. and not exceeding thirty per cent. per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette] on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty.; Provided where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004 dated 08.12.2009 if is closely examined, relates to return of deposit made as per the direction of the Tribunal wherein it is specified that the deposit needs to be returned within three months of the disposal of the appeal. Further, it is noted that in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors [2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX], the Apex Court considered the question that whether the payment of interest on the delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the liability of revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB would commence from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. In this context, it was held that if any duty is ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11B, the same should be refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application. The same should be paid with interest at such rate, not below five percent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum. It also further held that the said provision would come into play only after the order of refund is made under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the refund of pre-deposit. However, drawing analogy from Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which provides for the refund of the duty, Section 11BB as held by the Apex Court, herein above, speaks of the interest on the refund of the duty as there would arise a requirement of payment of interest if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application to be submitted under subsection (1) of Section 11B of the Act. Such interest needs to be paid as such rate fixed by the Central Government on expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of application. The deeming fiction under Section 11BB says that for the purpose of this Section, the order made by the Higher Appellate Authority or the Court shall be deemed to be the order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B. In the instant case, the amount claimed as refund being the duty paid and continued to lie as pre-deposit, with the department. Hence, once the Tribunal decided in favour of the present appellant on 24.10.2013, the payment of interest would start running from the same date. The Tribunal while so ordering to set aside ....