TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s warehouse for domestic sales upon payment of applicable duties. 3. In respect of domestic clearances, the appellant was under the view that they are eligible for exemption of CVD as per notification No.30/2004. The department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for DTA clearances. The appellant deposited the countervailing duty (CVD) under protest as they were under the bonafide belief that the benefit of exemption envisaged in Notification No.30/2004-CE dt. 09.07.2004 (as amended by Notification No.11/2013-CE dt. 01.03.2012) exempting manufacture of readymade apparels from payment of Excise duty subject to the condition that no CENVAT credit of inputs or capital goods is eligible to them. The appellant intimated the jurisdictional authorities that the duty is paid under protest vide letter dt. 24.11.2009 and 30.06.2015. 4. Later, the appellant filed refund claims in 2017 claiming refund of duty paid under protest. 5. As it appeared to the Department that such duty exemption is not applicable to the EOUs under Notification No.30/2004 (CE) dated 09.07.2004, the appellant was issued a show cause notice dt. 31.05.2017 asking them to show cause as to why the refund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A Nos.111-114/2023 dt. 10.03.2023 (impugned orders) allowed the interest. However, the computation of the interest was taken as 10.11.2021 which is 3 months after the date of withdrawal of appeal before the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) thus allowed interest of Rs.49,51,509/- on the 4 refund claims from 10.11.2021 to the date of sanction of refund. 9. According to appellant, since the refund claim is filed in 2014, 2015, 2017 on various dates, such dates should be considered for computing the period for granting interest. These appeals are filed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who had allowed interest only with effect from 10.11.2011 onwards. 10. The Ld. Consultant Shri Rajaram Ramanan appeared and argued for the appellant. 10.1 It is submitted that the refund claim was initially filed in Form R in 2014 / 2015 / 2017. In the said claim, the appellant had specifically stated that the duty of incidence was not passed on and that they have shown the amount as 'recoverables' in their accounts. 10.2 The Ld. Consultant placed reliance on the Central Excise Manual on Refund, which lays down the procedure that has to be followed by the Department on receipt of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the date of filing the refund claim for the different periods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has computed the period of interest after three months from the date of withdrawing the appeal before the Tribunal. Such computation is erroneous. The Ld. Consultant prayed that the appellant may be granted interest after 3 months from the date of filing the refund claim till the sanction of refund. 10.5 The Ld. Consultant was fair enough to submit that in appellant's own case for a refund claim on identical set of facts was decided by the Bench vide Final Order No.40795/2024 dt. 03.07.2024 (Appeal E/40435/2023). After considering the entire submissions, the Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for interest at the rate applicable as per law from 23.08.2018 (the date of OIA). The Ld. Consultant prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 11. Ld. A.R Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the Department. 11.1 It is submitted by Ld. A.R that as per an audit objection by the Department, the exemption from CVD as per Notification No.30/2004 was denied for the different periods. The appellant then paid the duty under protest. The audit decision pertains to a notification that condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as is the case for the refund claim for July 2015 to June 2016 which has been decided by the Tribunal. The vehement argument put forward by the Ld. Consultant is that these show cause notices did not raise the issue of unjust enrichment but were issued only on the ground that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption of the Notification No.30/2004 dt. 09.07.2004. On perusal of the SCNs dt. 31.03.2015 and 04.11.2015, we do find that even though the appellant had filed a refund claim, the show cause notice proposed to reject the refund claim alleging that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.30/2004. After due process of law, the original authority considered the issue as to whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of notification and held the issue against the appellant. The original authority held that the appellant is not eligible for benefit of exemption and the duty paid is in order. Consequently, the refund was rejected. Against this, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dt. 23.08.2018 held that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption of the notification a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Though the refund claim was filed appeal filed before Hon'ble Tribunal were furnished by M/s. TIIPL Only on 10.11.2021. Subsequently, the details were verified by the Range Officer concerned and the show Cause Notice proposing sanction and transfer to Consumer Welfare Fund was issued in February 2022. Hence, there is no delay in processing the claim and the question of payment of interest does not arise." 17. From the above, it can be seen that only by passing the order dt. 23.08.2018, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided finally the issue as to whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of notification. The matter was thus remanded for considering the issue of unjust enrichment. The appellant filed a further refund claim in 2021 after withdrawing the appeal before the Tribunal. A show cause notice was issued on the subsequent refund claim and after adjudication the refund has been sanctioned. The Ld. Consultant has been at pains to argue that the earlier SCN did not raise the issue of unjust enrichment and, therefore, there ought not to have been any further remand for considering the issue of unjust enrichment. 18. Interestingly, the appellant had filed an appeal befor....