TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2017 dated 08.11.2017 and serial no. 20A was inserted wherein at column no. 3 "Peas (Pisum Sativum) was mentioned with BCD at the rate of 50%. 2.1 The goods were given Out of Charge and were cleared for home consumption by the importer. Subsequent to that, the importer noticed that there was another amending notification no. 93/2017 dated 21.12.2017 which placed the Pisum Sativum under serial no. 20 with the BCD rate of duty being 'NIL' and thus the original position prevailing prior to the issuance of Amending Notification No.84/2017 dated 08.11.2017 stood restored. 2.2 The goods were imported and cleared during January and February 2018 Le during the period when the Notification No.93/2017 (21.12.2017 to 28.02.2018) was effective and accordingly the importer is of the view that the goods should have been assessed at NIL rate as per Notification No.93/2017-Customs dated 21.12.2017 instead of BCD @ 50% as per the Notification No.84/2017-Customs dated 08.11.2017. 2.3 In view of the above observations, the importer filed applications under Section 149 of the Custom Act, 1962 for amendment of their respective Bills of Entry along with a request to allow the refund of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the rate of 6% per annum to be computed from three months after original application filed by the respondent i.e. from 30.01.2019 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC). 2.12 Against the said order, the Revenue has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. From the record, it is seen that vide order dated 01.07.2026, the stay application filed by the Revenue was dismissed and Early Hearing Application filed by the Respondent was allowed and the matter has been argued by the Spl.Counsel for the Revenue, stating that the interest is payable within three months from the date of order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15.07.2025. Admittedly, the refund claim has been sanctioned on 16.09.2025. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim the interest on account of delay refund. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs. Vedanta Ltd. reported in (2025) 36 Centax 392 (Cal) in Custa No.14 of 2025 vide its Order dated 10.09.2025. 4. The respondent contested the appeal f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amply clear that refund if any arising under the Act are regulated by the provisions of Section 27 and the intention of the legislature does not envisage any refund except in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder. Equally, there is no question of application of any other law to enable the Customs authorities to consider the claim for refund of duty. That apart, Section 27(1) also prescribes the authorities before whom the refund application has to be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed and those authorities being the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs and therefore this court is of the view that there cannot be an order for refund without an application and such an application has to be made within the time prescribed under the statute. Assuming for the sake of argument, the direction issued by the court in a writ petition holding that the assesse therein is entitled to refund of duty paid which according to the court was retained by the department without the authority of law, even if such direction is issued the assessee has to make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed before the appropriate autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Customs under Sub Section (2) of Section 27, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate tribunal or as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under that Sub Section for the purpose of Section 27A. Thus, the language used in the explanation in Section 27A of the Act also covers the case where the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs under Section 27(2) of the Act is challenged before the appellate authority or the tribunal or the court and the order passed either by the appellate authority or by the tribunal or by the court, the same shall be deemed to an order passed under Sub Section (2) of Section 27 for the purpose of Section 27A. 26. The Customs Act is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to customs. The Act aims to sternly or expeditiously deal with smuggled goods and curbs the dent on revenue thus caused. The Act provides for confiscation of goods and conveyance and imposition of penalties where any goods which are imported contrary to any prohibition imposed or under the Act or any other law for the time being enforced. This is the object and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be deemed to be order passed under Sub Section (2) of Section 27 for the purpose of Section 27A of the Act. In such circumstances, the right to claim interest under Section 27A of the Act shall be from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application (in terms of Section 27(1) till the date of refund of such duty. 29. The above understanding of the law is required to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. The tribunal has elaborately referred to all earlier proceedings and in paragraph 37 as set out the factual matrix in a tabulated form and what is conspicuously missing is that the date on which the application for refund was submitted by the respondent which has been omitted to be mentioned. It is admitted fact that the respondent submitted the application for refund only on 05.08.2022. The tribunal was conscious of this fact, yet it proceeds to hold that there is no necessity for filing such an application which in the preceding paragraphs, we had held to be erroneous finding. The Act provides for a hierarchy of remedies. The assessee as well as the department are entitled to avail those remedies. No per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as made only on 05.08.2022 and therefore the award of interest from 11.01.2011 is not sustainable." Therefore, he submits that after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the refund has been considered in the case of Vedanta (supra), they are not entitled to claim the interest. 7. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Vedanta Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made." But the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the Vedanta's case, has not given any findings in respect of the said decision why the same is not applicable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to --- (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (b) unspent advance deposits lying in balance in the applicant's current account maintained with the Commissioner of Central Excise; (c) refund of credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, or any notification issued, under this Act; (d) the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the manufacturer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person; (e) the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty borne by the buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person; (f) the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty borne by any other such class of applicants as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify : Provided further that no notification under clause (f) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions 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 subsection (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 deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns from claimants to say that interest due to them on sanction of refund/rebate claims beyond a period of three months has not been granted by Central Excise formations. On perusal of the reports received from field formations on such representations, it has been observed that in majority of the cases, no reason is cited. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no interest needs to be paid. 2. In this connection. Board would like to stress that the provisions of section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted automatically for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The jurisdictional Central Excise Officers are not required to wait for instructions from any superior officers or to look for instructions in the orders of higher appellate authority for grant of interest. Simultaneously, Board would like to draw attention to Circular No. 398/31/98-CX., dated 2-6-98 [1998 (100) E.L.T. T16] wherein Board has directed that responsibility should....