Gujarat High Court
Ratnamani Metals And Tubes Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2024
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024(
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1168 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RATNAMANI METALS AND TUBES LTD & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RAHUL L GAJERA(9399) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PY DIVYESHVAR(2482) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 27/11/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul Gajera for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah for learned Senior Standing Page 1 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent. Rule returnable forthwith, learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah waives noticeof Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition in narrow compass with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"(b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.06.2018 (Annex.D) passed by CESTAT, Order dated Page 2 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 09.12.2014 (Annex.C) passed by learned Commissioner (Appeal-I) and order dated 18.09.2014 (Annex.B) passed by learned Deputy Commissioner to the extent it rejected/refrained from granting interest from the date of deposit of the amounts by the petitioner and/or direct the respondent to grant interest from the date of deposit at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1 The petitioner is engaged in business of manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. The petitioner was served with letter dated 06.12.2005 from the Superintendent of Central Excise (Preventive) whereby the petitioner was asked to pay amount of Rs. 22,93,439/-
towards central excise duty alleging that Page 3 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined the petitioner had cleared the finished goods without including the value of sales tax paid on raw materials in the assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis. The petitioner thereafter, as per the aforesaid letter, paid the amount of Rs. 10 Lakh vide Challan dated 31.12.2005 and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,93,439/-by Challan dated 22.02.2006 under protest. 4.2 It appears that thereafter, show-cause notice dated 10.05.2006 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling upon the petitioner as to why excise duty of Rs.22,93,439/- along with interest and penalty should not be levied upon the petitioner. By Order-in-original dated 13.12.2006, a demand of Rs. 22,93,439/- along with interest and penalty was Page 4 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise.
4.3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by order dated 30.03.2007, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the Order-in-original for levy of the excise duty of Rs. 22,93,439/- along with interest and penalty. 4.4 The petitioner therefore preferred an appeal before the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] who, by order dated 25.03.2014, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that no excise duty is payable by the petitioner.
4.5 The petitioner therefore filed application Page 5 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner on 31.12.2005 and 22.02.2006 during the investigation.
4.6 The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, however, by Order-in-original dated 08.07.2014 sanctioned the refund of the amount deposited but ordered to credit the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 4.7 The petitioner, therefore, preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed and the refund of the amount deposited during the investigation was ordered to be paid to the petitioner. 4.8 The petitioner was accordingly granted the refund on 07.11.2014. The petitioner thereafter filed an application to claim interest on the refund from the date of Page 6 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined deposit in the Year 2005 till the date of payment on 07.11.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner which was rejected. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 09.12.2014 allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment w.e.f. 28.06.2014 till the date of refund of Rs. 22,93,439/- with interest at the rate as specified in section 11BB of the Central Excise Act,1944 (for short 'the Act']. 4.9 Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the CESTAT who, by order dated 03.07.2018, rejected the appeal of the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) wherein, it was held that interest on Page 7 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined refund under section 11B is payable only from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rahul Gajera for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 22,93,439/- by letter dated 06.12.2005 without any authority of law by the respondent and the petitioner accordingly under protest deposited the said amount as directed by the said letter. It was therefore, submitted that though the petitioner was not required to pay such amount, the petitioner under protest deposited the said amount and therefore, Page 8 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined the amount which was deposited by the petitioner would continue as 'deposit'. Reliance was placed on the Circular dated 16.09.2014 of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) in support of his submissions.
5.1 It was submitted that the provision of section 11B of the Act would not be applicable as amount deposited by the petitioner was ultimately found to be not payable as per the order passed by the CESTAT and accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to the interest from the date of deposit and not as per the provision of section 11BB of the Act. It was therefore submitted that the provision of section 11BB of the Act would also not be applicable. Page 9 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 5.2 It was further submitted that as per the Circular dated 16.09.2014, CBEC has recognized the principle of restitution of the amount deposited during investigation by providing interest from the date of deposit as per paragraphs 3.2, 5.1 and 5.2 of the said Circular which was issued in the context of amended provision of section 35F of the Central Excise Act,1944 and section 129E of the Customs Act,1962 which were brought into effect from 06.08.2014 which mandatorily requires pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10%, as the case may be, as a pre- condition for filing an appeal. It was therefore, submitted that if the petitioner was not compelled to deposit the amount as per the letter dated 06.12.2005, the petitioner would have Page 10 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined deposited only the amount of pre-deposit required under the provisions of the Act and the petitioner would have been able to utilize the amount of more than Rs. 20 Lakh for the business purpose. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of deposit and not after expiry of three months from the date of making an application. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following decisions:
ONGC Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2007) 215 ELT 166 (SC);
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II vs UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd reported in (2014) 306 ELT 26 (Mad) Page 11 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 5.3 Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the interest from the date of deposit of the amount by the petitioner under protest.
5.4 It was further submitted that, by letter dated 06.12.2005 of the respondent- Department, the petitioner was compelled to deposit the amount even prior to issuance of show-cause notice and without adjudicating and determination of duty demand which is not in dispute and as such, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of deposit of Rs. 22,93,439/-. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions in support of submissions to point out that provision of section 11B read with section 11BB of the Page 12 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined Act would not be applicable in the facts of the case.
Kuil Fireworks Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (SC);
Hindustan Coco-cola Beverages Private Limited vs. UOI reported in 2015 (324) 299 (Guj).
5.5 It was further submitted that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) would not be applicable and the reliance was placed on paras 14 and 15 of the said judgement to distinguish the same from the facts of the case. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court Page 13 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined in case of Swastik Sanitary wares Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2013 (296) ELT 321 (Guj.) wherein, this Court after considering the decision of Apex Court in case of Mafatlal Industries ltd. (supra) held that second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods, in the facts of the said case, did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of an amount with the Government which the Revenue cannot retain or withhold and such claim would not fall within section 11B of the Act. 5.6 It was therefore submitted that the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd(supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Page 14 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined in case of Commissioner vs. KVR Construction reported in 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J 70 (S.C) to submit that reliance placed by the CESTAT on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (supra) is misplaced as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision was only essentially concerned with the relevant date of granting interest on refund of "duty" in terms of section 11BB of the Act and there was no issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to date of interest on return of "deposit" as is in the case of the petitioner.
5.7 It was therefore submitted that the refund granted under section 11B of the Act is also misplaced as it is not in dispute that without any show-cause notice or Page 15 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined adjudication, the petitioner was compelled to deposit the amount by letter dated 06.12.2005.
5.8 Learned advocate Mr. Rahul Gajera submitted that the petitioner had no option but to make an application in Form- R as, at the relevant time, refund application was not accepted as the same was required to be filed in physical form and merely filing an application in Form R would not alter the facts of the case so as to apply the provisions of section 11B of the Act which are not applicable. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore vs. KVR Construction reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.) which was upheld by the Supreme Court in case of Page 16 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined Commissioner vs. KVR Construction reported in 2018 (14) G.S.D.L.J 70(S.C). 5.9 Reliance was thereafter placed on the decision of this Court in case of Vijay Textiles vs. UOI reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T.J 181 (Guj.) wherein, in similar facts, it was held by this Court that well settled principle of restitution is applicable according to which a person who has been wronged or has suffered loss due to the wrongful actions of another should be restored to his original position. Reliance was placed on para 22 of such judgement which reads as under:
"22. Under these circumstances, we respectfully agree with the observations of the Division Bench of J. B. Mehta and S. H. Sheth JJ. in the High Court judgment cited above and we Page 17 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined hold that refund can be granted in respect of excise duty paid by the processors within three years immediately preceding the institution of the Special Civil Applications. In the instant case, the excise duty claimed on the basis of the market value of the processed cotton fabrics or man-made fabrics cannot be levied because, assuming that process amounts to manufacture, all that they have done is to manufacture processed cloth, processed fabric, either cotton or man-made and that not being a taxable event in the light of section 3 read with section 2(d) of the Act and Items 19 and 22, levy of excise duty on this basis was ultra vires and contrary to law Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the refund of the excess of excise duty paid by them during the period of last three years immediately preceding the filing of the Special Civil Application over what they were bound to pay on the footing that processing of cotton fabrics is an excisable activity covered by them 68. Item 68 refers to "All other goods not specified elsewhere manufactured in a factory."
Therefore processed cotton fabrics and processed man-made fabrics were manufactured in the factories of the Page 18 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined petitioners and since they are not covered by Item 19 or 22 of the Schedule, they are liable to pay ad valoren duty only in respect of the value added by them at the time of processing because the only manufacturing activity which they have done is the manufacturing of processed fabrics from which was already in existence. The Excise authorities are therefore directed to calculated the ad valorem excise duty during the period of three years immediately preceding the institution of each petition before us and calculate the excise duty payable by each of these petitioners under Item 68 only in respect of the value added by each of the petitioners by the processing of the concerned. The excise duty paid in excess of such ad valorem duty under Item 68 during the period of three years immediately preceding the institution of the respective Special Application is ordered to be refunded to the petitioners concerned in each of there petitioners. It must be emphasized that these amounts which we are directing to be refunded, were collected by the Excise authorities without the authority of law and were illegal levies. The Central Government had use of these amounts during his Page 19 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined period of three years and correspondingly the petitioner concerned was kept out of the use of these amounts during the said period. It is therefore just and proper that the respondents should pay interest at twelve per cent per annum (which is the proper rate looking to the conditions in the money market) from the dates of the collection of the said amounts directed to be refunded till the date of actual repayment. Rule is therefore made absolute in each of these petitions and the respondents in each of these matters will pay the costs of the petitioners."
Referring to the above decision, it was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 22,93,439/- which was recovered pursuant to the letter dated 06.12.2005 without authority of law from the date of deposit applying the principle of restitution.
Page 20 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 6 On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah for the respondent submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Commissioner of Appeals and CESTAT relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (supra) which is squarely applicable in the facts of the case. It was submitted that after deposit of the amount by the petitioner, the Order-in-original was passed adjudicating the levy of excise duty which was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the CESTAT allowed the appeal of the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount of deposit made which was subsequently adjusted as duty paid, only Page 21 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined after the passing of the order of the CESTAT and accordingly, the provisions of section 11B as well as 11BB would be applicable in the facts of the case. 6.1 In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent:
"16. With regard to para 13, I say that whatever stated in para 13, are denied and disputed in toto and petitioner is entitled to put strict proof in respect of whatever is stated these Para 13. I further say that the in this para, the Petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of Futura Ceramics Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE & ST, Vadodara -1, Final Order No. A/13764/2017 dated 21.11.2017 whereby the Hon'ble CESTAT was of opinion that the assessee shall be entitled to refund of the amount deposited during the investigation from the date of deposit till the date of realization of refund.Page 22 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined It is respectfully submitted that in the present case of Petitioner, the decision of Futura Ceramics Pvt Ltd is not applicable as the facts of the present case are different. It is respectfully submitted that in the present case, the refund to the petitioner was sanctioned under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that on the issue of interest on refund of duty the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)} has held that the interest on refund under Section 11B is payable only from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund. It is further submitted that in case of Futura Ceramics Pvt Ltd, the Hon'ble CESTAT has not considered the judgement of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd and KamakshiTradexim (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (351) ELT 102 (Guj)].
17. With regard to para 14, I say that Whatever stated in para 14, are denied and disputed in toto and petitioner is entitled to put strict proof of respect of whatever is stated this Para 14. I further say that in the said para the petitioner has referred the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Page 23 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined Channai Vs Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd, 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.) wherein the issue was regarding the limitation contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, to which the Hon'ble Court has held that the limitation contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable since the amount in question was not paid towards excise duty but only by way of deposit during investigation But in the present case the refund of the Central Excise duty was sanctioned under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
18. With regard to para 15,I say that Whatever stated in para 15, are denied and disputed in toto and petitioner is entitled to put strict proof of respect of whatever is stated this Para 15. I further say that the petitioner has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of ONGC Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2007 (215) ELT 166 (S.C.) in respect of the customs duties and interest thereon realized during pendency of the Civil Appeals pending before the Apex Court.
But the said case is not applicable in present case of petitioner as facts of both cases are different. I further say that in the present case, no interest Page 24 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined on Central Excise duty was realized, and that the Central Excise duty refunded was not paid by them during pendency of any appeal.
19. With regard to para 16, I say that whatever stated in para 16, are denied and disputed in toto and petitioner is entitled to put strict proof of respect of whatever is stated this Para 16. I further say that the judgments cited by the Petitioner are not applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are different from the cited judgments | further say that the refund was sanctioned to the petitioner under Section 118 of the Central Excise Act 1944.
20. With regard to para 17, I say that whatever stated in para 17, are denied and disputed in toto and petitioner is entitled to put strict proof of respect of whatever is stated this Para 17. I further say that the action of the Respondent authority is just, proper and according to provision of law. To support this action, the answering respondent relies on following judgments:
Page 25 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined A. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. For the sake of convenience, Para 9 of the said judgement is reproduced below:
"9. Section 11B 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 pard 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 deeming fiction that where the order of 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 shall be deemed to be an order under sub- section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with Page 26 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable."
It is respectfully submitted that in the present case the refund Rs. 22,93,439/was sanctioned to the Petitioner vide O1O No. 26/CE/REF/2014-15 dated 07.11.2014 by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Kalol Division. The order for refund in the said OI0 dated 07.11.2014 reads as "I hereby sanction the amount of Rs.
22,93,439/(Rupee Twenty Two Lakhs Ninety Three Thousands Four Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) in favour of M/s. Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Limited, Plot No. 3306 to 3309, GIDC Estate, Phase-IV, Ahmedabad-Mehsana Page 27 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined Highway, Chhatral, Ta: Kalol, Dist.. Gandhinagar, under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 in cash as per OIA No. AHM-EXCUS-003 APP.094-14-15 dated 10102014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III) Ahmedabad". The refund was thus sanctioned under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
It Is further submitted that the refund amount of Rs. 22,93,439/sanctioned to the Petitioner in cash was as per the OIA No. AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-094-1415 dated 10.10.2014. In the OIA dated 10.10.2014, the Commissioner(Appeal- III), Central Excise, Ahmedabad has held that "During the course of personal hearing, the appellant has also produced Certificate dated 25.07.2014 of Chartered Accountant M/s. S. R. Sanghvi & Co, certifying that the appellant has not passed on the said duty paid under protest to any other person and is appearing in Receivable account of the Books of Account maintained by them.
Thus, the impugned order crediting refund claimed amount to Consumer Welfare Fund is not just, legal and proper.
Page 28 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined B. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kamakshi Tradexim (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India [2017(351)ELT102(Guj)}. For the sake of convenience, Para 8 of the said judgement is reproduced below :
"8. Thus, the Supreme Court, in the above decision has clearly held 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 the order of refund is made. Under the circumstances, the contention advanced by the respondents that the orders sanctioning rebate having been passed and the amount having been paid within the time limited stipulated by the High Court in its judgment and order dated 18-2-
2016 made in Special Civil Applications No. 14616 of 2015 and No. 14617 of 2015, the petitioners are not entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Act, cannot be countenanced even for a moment. In the facts of the present case, initially the respondents had kept the rebate claims of the petitioners in abeyance, due to which the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court Page 29 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined and with a view to obviate any further delay in deciding the application, in the light of the observations made in its judgment and order dated 18-2-2016 made in the above referred writ petitions, this Court had directed the concerned authority to decide the rebate applications within a period four months from the date of receipt of the said order. When the statute clearly provides that interest shall be payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11BB of the Act, merely because this Court had Stipulated the period within which the concerned respondent should decide the application, the same would not operate in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner and curtail the statutory Period prescribed under Section 11BB of the Act."
C. Judgment of the CESTAT Delhi in case of M/s, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Visakhapatnam in Excise Appeal No 5401/2004. In the said judgement the CESTAT has given its decision in respect of order of refund made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as specifically mentioned in the said sanction order. For the sake of convenience, Para 8.6 of the said judgement is reproduced below: Page 30 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined "8.6 Admittedly, the refund claim was sanctioned within three months from the date of the application for refund. Obviously, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim interest on the refund of Rs.
4,30,000/- being the pre-deposit of the duty demanded under the order, which was challenged before the Tribunal under Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal, while entertaining the claim of interest of the present nature, cannot overtook the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act, which would apply in all cases of interest of delayed refunds. The decision in Kuil Fireworks Industries in which the Hon'ble the Supreme Court while directing the refund of duty, awarded interest cannot generate power to award interest for the Tribunal contrary to the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act since the award of interest under that decision is obviously relatable to the plenary powers of the Supreme Court. Even the award of interest by the High Courts in exercise of their writ jurisdiction will not constitute a ratio creating power of the Tribunal or revenue authorities to award interest contrary to the provisions of Section 11BB on the delayed refunds. As held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Padmanabh Silk Mills Vs. Union of India (Supra), Page 31 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined where specific application is made under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 for interest on delayed refund then the same had to be considered and decided by the authority in the light of the provisions of Section 11B(2) as well as Section 11BB of the Act, as Section 11BB provides interest for delayed refund of duty and not of deposit. It was held that the authority was, therefore, right in rejecting the refund on delayed refund. The Hon'ble High Court held in para 11 of the judgment that, from a bare reading of Section 11B(2) and 11BB of the act, it is clear that if the concerned authority was satisfied on the claim of the applicant of refund, then the refund was to be paid within three months from the date of the receipt of the application for refund, then the refund was to be paid within three months from the date of the receipt of the application, and if it was not so paid then interest had to be paid on it under Section 11BB of the Act. This decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat Court fortifies the conclusion that the claim for interest made by the appellant in respect of the refund of the deposited amount was not maintainable under Section 11BB of the Act, since the refund application was disposed of within three months of its receipt."
Page 32 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Shah therefore, submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly granted the interest from 20.06.2014 i.e. after expiry of 03 months from the date of making an application by the petitioner for refund till the date of payment which was confirmed by the CESTAT.
7 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the material available on record as well as the decisions cited at bar, the facts are not in dispute which can be revisited to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of deposit in the Year 2005 or as per the provision of section 11BB of the Act. It Page 33 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined would therefore be germane to refer to the provisions of section 11B and 11BB of the Act which reads as under:
"11B. CLAIM FOR REFUND OF DUTY.
(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise] before the expiry of six months [from the relevant date] [in such form and manner] as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person :
Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the commencement of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, such application shall be deemed to have been made under this sub-section as amended by the said Act and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) substituted by that Act :Page 34 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined Provided further that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. xxxx 11BB. INTEREST ON DELAYED REFUNDS.-
If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Board, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty :
Provided that where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately Page 35 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty.
Explanation :Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, under sub-section (2) of section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section 71.
8 At the outset, we are of the opinion that merely because the petitioner was compelled to pay the amount of Rs.22,93,439/-by the respondent prior to issuance of show-cause notice or adjudication, the principle of restitution would not be attracted in view of the subsequent event which has taken place of passing Order-in-original determining the demand of central excise duty with interest and penalty which had subsisted Page 36 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined up to the order passed by the CESTAT allowing the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that date of amount deposited by the petitioner under protest would have to be considered for claim of interest payable to the petitioner to consider the amount deposited as "deposit" as the said amount has thereafter been adjusted against outstanding demand which was quantified by the respondent-authority while passing the Order-in-original. Even the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-original and only after the CESTAT allowed the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the amount duty which was adjusted form the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest.
Page 37 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 9 In view of the above facts, in our opinion, the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Supra) would be squarely applicable wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" 9. 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 deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Page 38 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 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 Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable.
10. It is a well settled Page 39 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. (See: Cape Brandy Syndicate Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners4 and Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax5.) 4 [1921] 1 K.B. 64 5 (2010) 8 SCC 739.
11. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract a Circular dated 1st October 2002, issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, wherein referring to its earlier Circular dated 2nd June 1998, whereby a direction was issued to fix responsibility for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of application, the Board has reiterated its earlier stand on the applicability of Section 11BB of the Act. Significantly, the Board has stressed that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act are attracted "automatically" for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. The Circular reads thus:Page 40 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined "Circular No.670/61/2002-CX, dated 1- 10-2002 F.No.268/51/2002-CX.8 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Non-payment of interest in refund/rebate cases which are sanctioned beyond three months of filing - regarding I am directed to invite your attention to provisions of section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 that wherever the refund/rebate claim is sanctioned beyond the prescribed period of three months of filing of the claim, the interest thereon shall be paid to the applicant at the notified rate. Board has been receiving a large number of representations 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 Page 41 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined 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 be fixed for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within three months from the date of receipt of Page 42 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined application. Accordingly, jurisdictional Commissioners may devise a suitable monitoring mechanism to ensure timely disposal of refund/rebate claims. Whereas all necessary action should be taken to ensure that no interest liability is attracted, should the liability arise, the legal provision for the payment of interest should be scrupulously followed."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Thus, ever since Section 11BB was inserted in the Act with effect from 26th May 1995, the department has maintained a consistent stand about its interpretation. Explaining the intent, import and the manner in which it is to be implemented, the Circulars clearly state that the relevant date in this regard is the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application under Section 11B(1) of the Act.
13. We, thus find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in fact the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in U.P. Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. (supra).
Page 43 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined In the said case, while dismissing the special leave petition filed by the revenue and putting its seal of approval on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, this Court had observed as under:
"Heard both the parties.
In our view the law laid down by the Rajasthan High Court succinctly in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 4 vide Para 33:
"A close reading of Section 11BB, which now governs the question relating to payment of interest on belated payment of interest, makes it clear that relevant date for the purpose of determining the liability to pay interest is not the determination under sub- section (2) of Section 11B to refund the amount to the applicant and not to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund but the relevant date is to be determined with reference to date of application laying claim to refund. The non- payment of refund to the applicant claimant within three months Page 44 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined from the date of such application or in the case governed by proviso to Section 11BB, non-payment within three months from the date of the commencement of Section 11BB brings in the starting point of liability to pay interest, notwithstanding the date on which decision has been rendered by the competent authority as to whether the amount is to be transferred to Welfare Fund or to be paid to the applicant needs no interference."
The special leave petition is dismissed. No costs."
14. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (supra), relied upon by the Delhi High Court. It is evident from a bare reading of the decision that insofar as the reckoning of the period for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 11BB of the Act is concerned, emphasis has been laid on the date of receipt of application for refund. In that case, having noted that application by the assessee requesting for refund, was filed before the Assistant Commissioner on 12th January 2004, the Court directed Page 45 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined payment of Statutory interest under the said Section from 12th April 2004 i.e. after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. Thus, the said decision is of no avail to the revenue.
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."
10 This Court, in case of Kamakshi Tradexim (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 2017(351) ELT 102 (Guj), following the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories (Ltd) (supra), has held that from a bare reading of Section 11B(2) and 11BB of the Act, it is clear that if the Page 46 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined concerned authority was satisfied on the claim of the applicant of refund, then the refund was to be paid within three months from the date of the receipt of the application for refund and if it was not so paid then interest had to be paid on it under Section 11BB of the Act. 11 Decision relied upon by the petitioner in support of the submissions that the amount deposited by the petitioner in the Year 2005 would continue as "deposit" as ultimately the petitioner had succeeded before the CESTAT is not tenable because in the intervening period i.e. from the date of deposit till the date of passing of the order by the CESTAT, the amount deposited by the petitioner has never remained as 'deposit' but it has been Page 47 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined adjusted towards the outstanding dues which was quantified in the Order-in- original. The petitioner, at no point of time, has raised any dispute regarding the amount deposited under protest before any of the authority till the Tribunal decided the appeal in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that decision of this Court in case of Vijay Textiles (supra) was much prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra).Therefore, contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to interest from that date of deposit made under protest in the year 2005 is incorrect as the refund was granted to the petitioner under section 11B of the Act and accordingly Page 48 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1168/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2024( undefined interest is rightly awarded under section 11BB of the Act.
12 In such circumstances, other decisions which are referred to and relied upon on behalf of the petitioner do not require any further analysis in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.(supra). 13 In view of the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is upheld by the CESTAT granting interest on refund as per section 11BB of the Act. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (D.N.RAY,J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 49 of 49 Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Wed Dec 11 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 02:56:25 IST 2024