TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of goods due to fire had been accorded by the competent authority. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and culminated into Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Chandigarh confirming the duty demand of Rs.3,78,279/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 14.03.2005, set aside the said Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the Revenue filed appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi, which vide its Final Order dated 18.03.2007, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court also dismissed the Revenue's appeal filed against the order of the CESTAT. Thereafter, the Revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which vide its Interim Order dated 19.03.2010 directed the appellant to deposit the full amount of duty i.e. Rs.3,78,279/-, which was deposited by the appellant on 24.05.2010. Thereafter, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisions of Section 35FF as the amount deposited by the appellant was not as a pre-condition for preferring any appeal but was deposited as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that as per the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), statutory provisions for grant of interest on delayed payment of refund under Section 11B are governed by Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which clearly specifies that the interest is payable only if refund is not granted within 3 months from the date of receipt of refund application till the date of refund of such duty. Interest rate has also been prescribed in the said section to be as fixed by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette i.e. Notification No. 67/2003-CE (NT) dated 19.09.2003. In support of his submission, he relies on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court: * Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. UOI - 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) * UOI vs. Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd - 2022 (60) GSTL 3 (SC) * Commr of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals - 2017 (51) STR 236 (SC) * UOI vs. Cosmo Films Limited [Supreme Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 in Civ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartmental appeal before the CESTAT came to be dismissed. 24. We deem it apposite to observe that the mere pendency of an appeal or an order of stay that may operate thereon would not detract from the obligation of any person claiming a refund making an application as contemplated under Section 11B(1) within the period prescribed and computed with reference to the "relevant date". We do so observe in light of the indubitable principle that an order of stay that may operate in an appeal does not efface the demand or the obligation of refund that may have sprung into existence. It merely places the enforcement of the order appealed against in abeyance. The order of stay would, in any case, be deemed to have never existed once the appeal comes to be dismissed. 25. We further note that the subject of interest on delayed refund which is governed by Section 11BB itself prescribes the starting point for payment of interest on delayed refunds to be the date when an application under Section 11B(1) is received. On a conjoint reading of Sections 11B and 11BB of the 1944 Act, therefore, we come to the irresistible conclusion that interest on delayed refund is clearly dependent upon the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication and a declaration to the aforesaid effect is thus not merely an empty formality. This too appears to reinforce the imperatives of an application being formally made before a claim for refund is considered. 30. That only leaves the Court to consider the decisions which were cited by Mr. Mishra for our consideration. However, before proceeding to do so, we deem it pertinent to enter the following prefatory observations. A levy of interest on refund must undoubtedly follow where it is found that the amount has been unjustifiably retained or remitted with undue delay. The respondents cannot be permitted to retain moneys which are otherwise not due or are otherwise liable to be returned. The solitary question which stands raised in these matters is the date from which that interest would flow. In Shri Jagdamba Polymers, the High Court on facts had found that the refund was inordinately delayed even though a claim for the same had been promptly lodged. This is clearly evident from Para 7 of the report. The said decision is thus clearly not an authority for the proposition that a refund must automatically follow de hors the requirements of Sections 11B and 11BB. 31. In eBIZ,....