Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jct Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 1391 of 2011 - Ex (SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 27/CE/APPL/LDH/2011 dated 22.12.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ludhiana]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. JCT Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise . Respondent
Ludhiana Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing /decision: 24.12.2014 FINAL ORDER NOS. A/ 54934/2014-Ex(SM) Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their claim of interest has been rejected as it is the contention of the Revenue that refund claim has to be sanctioned within three months from the date of application of refund.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the initial adjudication took place on 16.6.97 and the said order was appealed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the order of adjudication on 13.2.98 confirming the demand of Rs.9,97,348/-. The said order was challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to adjudicating authority on 5.7.2000. The said matter remained pending before the adjudicating authority for readjudication till 10.2.05 when the adjudication took place. In the meantime, the appellant filed the refund claim of the amount pre-deposited by them on 23.6.2004 and the refund claim was sanctioned on 31.8.2004. The contention of the appellant is that they are entitled for interest of delayed refund after three months from the order of the Tribunal i.e. 5.7.2000 till 31.8.2004 when the refund was sanctioned. The application for interest on delayed refund was rejected by the lower authorities on the premise that refund claim has been sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of application of refund. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned advocate for the appellant appeared before me and submits that as per CBEC Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX dated 8.12.2004, it has been clarified by the CBEC that the pre-deposit amount must be returned within three months from the date of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal/ Court or other final authority unless there is any stay on the order of Final authority/ CESTAT/Court by a superior Court. This circular was issued on the directions of the Honble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. reported in [2005 (179) ELT 15 SC]. Therefore as the Tribunal has set aisde the order confirming the demand of Rs. 9.97,348/-, they are entitled for getting the refund after three months of the order of this Tribunal dated 5.7.2000. As the refund claim has not been sanctioned to them and same was sanctioned on 31.8.2004, therefore, they are entitled to claim interest for the intervening period.
4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that as the Tribunal has remanded the matter back and adjudication was not finalized. In that circumstances, the refund claim was sanctioned within two months from the date of filing the refund claim. He also relied on certain case laws namely, Union of India vs. UP Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. [ 2009 (243) ELT A 27 (SC)]; and J K Cement Works vs. CCE [2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj)].
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
6. The short issue before me is that whether as per CBEC Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX, the appellant is entitled to claim the interest on delayed refund from the period after three months from the date of passing of order by this Tribunal till the refund was sanctioned. Case law relied upon by the learned Counsel has been considered by me. The decision of J K Cement Works was prior to issuance of Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX, therefore the same is not applicable to the facts of the case. As in the case of UP Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. (supra), it is not coming out whether the refund claim was filed by the assessee or refund was made after the order passed by this Tribunal or not and in the said case, the circular dated 8.12.2004 was not considered.
7. Relying on the decision of ITC Ltd. (supra), the appellant is entitled for interest on delayed refund from the period after three months of order was passed by the Tribunal till sanction of the refund, i.e. during the period 5.10.2002 to 31.8.2004. With these terms, appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2