ion>Ramesh Nair#10CS500MiscellaneousMANURamesh Nair,TRIBUNALSAccount#Account Current#Advance#Advance Deposit#Ambiguity#Appeal#Appellate Tribunal#Application#Assessee#Assistant Commissioner#Bearing#Bench#Buyer#CENVAT#CENVAT credit#Claim#Commissioner (Appeals)#Commissioner of Central Excise#Credit#Credit of Duty#Date#Delay#Delayed Refund#Deposit#Destroyed#Destroyed good#Duty#Duty Paid#Evidence#Excisable Goods#Excisable Material#Finance Bill#Goods#Goods Destroyed#India#Information#Inputs#Interest#Limitation#Manufacture#Manufacturer#Material#Notification#On Receipt#Order#Person#Process#Protest#Rebate#Rebate of Duty#Record#Reference#Refund#Refund Claim#Refund of Duty#Rejection of Claim#Relevant Date#Remission#Remission of Duty#Representative#Reversal#Service#Tax#Tribunal#Under Protest2022-4-12 -->

MANU/CS/0077/2022

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Excise Appeal No. 10945 of 2021

Decided On: 05.04.2022

Appellants: Atmiya Engineering and Plastics Vs. Respondent: C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ramesh Nair

ORDER

Ramesh Nair, Member (J)

1. The issue involved is whether the appellant is entitled for interest in respect of the refund claim already granted.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has claimed remission of duty in respect of goods destroyed. In the said process, they were asked to reverse the Cenvat Credit of inputs contained in the destroyed goods. Accordingly, they reversed the credit some part of it from PLA and some part of it from Cenvat account, thereafter, they claimed refund of the said reversal on the belief they were not supposed to reverse the credit. The appellant filed a refund claim on 11.06.2018 which was rejected and subsequently Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim. Thereafter, the appellant approached the department by way of a letter with reference to their earlier refund claim filed on 11.06.2018, the department has sanctioned the refund claim on 14.06.2018. The appellant being of bonafide belief that they are entitled for the interest from the three months after the filing of refund claim, the claimed the interest, which was rejected on the ground that since, the refund claim was granted within 3 months from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, no interest is payable. Being aggrieved by the rejection of claim of interest, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the view of original authority and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant.

3. Shri. Saurabh Dixit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it is a settled law in various judgments that as per Section 11BB, the interest is payable on the delayed refund after three months from the date of filing of the application of refund. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for the interest. He placed reliance on the following judgments:-

• Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. MANU/SC/1269/2011 : 2011 (273) ELT 3(SC)

• Humdard (Waqf) Laboratories 2016 (333) ELT 19 (SC)

• M & B Footwear P. Ltd. MANU/CN/0153/2017 : 2018 (8) GSTL 179 (Tri. All.)

• National Engineering Industries ltd. MANU/CE/0323/2019 : 2019 (28) GSTL 264 (Tri.Del.)

• Rajlakshmi Textile Processors Ltd. MANU/TN/2648/2007 : 2008 (221) ELT 38 (Mad.)

• Reliance Industries Ltd. MANU/GJ/0987/2010 : 2010 (259) ELT 356 (Guj.)

• Reliance Industries Ltd. 2011 (274) ELT A110 (SC)

4. Sh........