TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the amount of Service Tax of Rs. 34,19,071/-on the commission earned on the activities of marketing and distribution of mutual funds, paid under protest, for the period from August 2003 to March 2004, and the amount of Rs.1,32,872/-which was also paid as interest on delayed payment of service tax. 2.1. The appellant paid the service tax along with interest under protest in view of Circular No. 66/15/2003. Later, the appellant applied for refund as the said Circular was struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Karvy Securities Limited vs. Union of India, coming to the conclusion that the assessee is eligible for the refund claim. The said refund claim was rejected by Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.12.2005 relying upon the clarification given by the Board under CBEC Circular No. 66/15/2003 dated 05.11.2003. Aggrieved by the said order, the noticee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee is eligible for refund claim and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. 2.2. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-appeal, the depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on 17.10.2013 hence the interest will be paid from the date 16.01.2014 and he rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 3.1 Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 11.12.2017, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the issue of interest on refund involved in this case is covered by the benchmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. Union of India - 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue of payment of interest on delayed refund of service tax is no more res-integra in view of the judgment in Ranbaxy case. In Ranbaxy case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is manifest from the afore extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) which became the law of the land was not considered by it. 4.2 The learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that the ratio of judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited case squarely applies to the facts of the present case as the application for payment of service tax made under protest was made on 10.11.2004. This was held to be not liable to be paid by the Tribunal. Hence, the refund granted vide Tribunal's order dated 22.10.2013 ought to have been paid with applicable interest. 4.3 The Appellants also argued that in Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Hyderabad-I vs. Eveready Industries India Limited- 2016 (343) ELT 567 (Tri-Bang) the Tribunal in no ambiguous terms, distinguished both the decisions relied upon by department in the present case i.e. Coronation Spinning India vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata - 2004 (170) ELT 143 (Tri. LB) and Indian Thermoplastics Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner 2004 (164) ELT 156 (Tri-LB) and the Tribunal followed Hon'ble Supreme Court's dictum in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited case (supra). Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal has relied upon the j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Customs, Kolkata - 2004 (170) ELT 143 (Tri. LB) because the order of Larger Bench is against the ratio decidendi of Ranbaxy case Under article 141 of the India Constitution, the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is the law of land and it is in force and applicable throughout the territory of India and it cannot be ignored on the pretext that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has given the ruling otherwise. 7.1 In Ranbaxy case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that it is manifest from the afore extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a de....