Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Grasim Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 8 April, 2024
E/20357, 20465/2021
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Central Excise Appeal No. 20357 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 188/2020-21-CT dated
12.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II),
Bangalore.)
M/s. Grasim Industries Limited
Kumarapatnam, Appellant(s)
Haveri District,
Karnataka - 581 123.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central
Tax
Bangalore North-West, Respondent(s)
2nd Floor, BMTC Bus Stand Complex,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 051.
WITH
Central Excise Appeal No. 20465 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 189/2020-21-CT dated
22.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-
II), Bangalore.)
M/s. Grasim Industries
Limited
Kumarapatnam, Appellant(s)
Haveri District,
Karnataka - 581 123.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central
Tax
Bangalore North-West, Respondent(s)
2nd Floor, BMTC Bus Stand Complex,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 051.
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ravi Raghavan and Ms. Meghna Lal, Advocates for the Appellant
Shri K. Vishwanath, Authorised Representative for the Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER
(TECHNICAL)
Page 1 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
Final Order No. 20282 - 20283 /2024
DATE OF HEARING: 10.10.2023
DATE OF DECISION: 08.04.2024
PER : D.M. MISRA
These two appeals are filed against respective
Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bangalore, since involve connected issues, taken up together for
disposal. These appeals have a chequered history.
Appeal No.20357 of 2021
2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants
are engaged in the manufacture of Viscose Staple Fibres (VSF)
falling under CSH 5504.10 of CETA, 1985 at their Units at
Kumarapatnam (Karnataka), Nagda(MP)and Kharach (Gujrat).
One of the major inputs in the manufacture of Viscose Staple
Fiber (VSF) is Rayon Grade Wood Pulp which was manufactured
by the appellant in their factory at Kumarapatnam and captively
consumed in the manufacture of VSF. Also, a portion of said
Rayon Grade Wood Pulp had been cleared to their Nagda unit
for use in the manufacture of VSF without payment of duty. A
part of Rayon Grade Wood Pulp manufactured at factory was
also being cleared to independent buyers. The appellants have
been availing CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs which
were captively consumed in the manufacture of VSF and Rayon
Grade Wood Pulp. A show-cause notice was issued to them on
14.12.2004 demanding Rs.15,16,35,274/- being 8% or 10% of
the value of the Rayon Grade Wood Pulp cleared to their Nagda
unit since the appellant failed to maintain separate accounts for
inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods and dutiable
final products as per Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The appellant reversed the input credit of Rs.1,91,93,628/-
availed on the inputs on 06.11.2007 under protest. The said
show-cause notice was adjudicated confirming the demand of
Rs.15,16,35,274/- with interest and penalty by the
Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed
Page 2 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
an appeal before this Tribunal and by order dated 19.08.2010,
the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority
to redetermine the liability in the light of retrospective
amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 by the
Finance Act, 2010.
2.2 Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant
filed an application on 25.10.2010 under Section 72(2) of the
Finance Act, 2010 intimating that they have reversed
proportionate input credit attributable to the stock transferred
Rayon Grade Wood Pulp to Nagda unit amounting to
Rs.83,10,886/- (which already stands reversed as part of debit
of Rs.1,91,93,628/-) and also they have paid an amount of
Rs.88,22,485/- being 24% of interest applicable to proportionate
credit of Rs.83,10,886/-; also they had requested the learned
Commissioner for restoration of balance excess credit to the
extent of Rs.1,00,23,977/- debited earlier.
2.3 The learned Commissioner following the remand direction
of the Tribunal's order dated 19.08.2010 adjudicated the case
taking note of the Appellant's Application dated 25.10.2010
under the Finance Act,2010 and verification report of the Range
Officer dated 26.11.2010, set aside the demand of
Rs.15,16,35,274/-, confirmed and appropriated reversal of
proportionate credit of Rs.91,82,820/- and interest of
Rs.88,22,475/-. The learned Commissioner, however denied
restoration of excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- on the ground
that the appellant had not followed the procedure laid down
under Section 11B of Central Excise Act,1944.
2.4 Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the
Tribunal against the said portion of the de novo order which
denied the restoration of excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/-. This
Tribunal by Final Order dated 18.07.2019 allowed the Appeal
and directed to re-credit excess reversal of CENVAT credit of
Rs.1,00,10,808/- and also opined that interest of Rs.88,22,475/-
Page 3 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
was not warranted to be paid. Pursuant to the said Final Order of
the Tribunal, the appellant requested for refund of the excess
credit of Rs.1,00,808/- and interest amount. A show-cause
notice dated 17.09.2019 was issued proposing rejection of
interest of refund of Rs.88,22,475/-. On adjudication, the
learned adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of
Rs.1,00,10,808/- in terms of Section 11B of CEA, 1944 but no
interest was allowed on the same and claim of the interest
amount of Rs.88,22,475/- was rejected. Aggrieved by the same,
they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (A) who in
turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
Appeal No.20465 of 2021
2.5 Pursuant to the de-novo Order dated 2011, denying the
re-credit of the balance excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- for not
following the proper procedure, the Appellant had filed refund
application for the said amount of Rs.1,00,10,808/- under
Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 on 17.06.2011. On adjudication,
the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority
observing it was not paid under protest; however, it was also
observed that principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable to
refund of CENVAT credit. Consequently, the Appellant as well as
Revenue filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (A). The
Ld. Commissioner (A) remanded the cases to the adjudicating
authority to decide the same in the light of Tribunal Order
18.07.2019. In de novo proceeding, the adjudicating taking note
of the sanction of Refund of Rs.1,00,10,808/- vide Order dated
20.11.2019, dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved, the Appellant
filed appeal before Commissioner (A) and by Order-in-Appeal
No.189/2020-21 CT dated 22.03.2021 it was rejected. Hence,
the present Appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
appellant is entitled for recredit/refund of the excess reversal of
Rs.1,00,10,808/- and interest of Rs.88,22,475/- paid on the
Page 4 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
amount of Rs.83,10,886/- in view of the Final Order
No.20647/2019 dated 18.7.2019 passed by this Tribunal. It is
his submission that the said order has attained finality and being
not challenged by the department, it continues to operate and
binding on the appellant as well as the department. Reliance is
placed in the case of CCE, Chennai vs. ITC Ltd.: 2006 (204) ELT
363 (SC) wherein it is held that once the department does not
challenge the findings in an earlier order, the said order attains
finality. Further, he has submitted that the impugned orders are
against the tenets of the judicial discipline since the orders of
higher appellate authorities was not followed. In support, he has
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Ltd.: 1991 (55) ELT
433 (SC). The learned advocate has submitted that they are
eligible for refund of Rs.88,22,475/- paid by them as interest
since there was no liability to pay interest on the amount of
Rs.83,10,886/- being credit which had been taken and reversed
prior to utilisation. He has further submitted that where credit is
reversed prior to utilisation, it amounts to non-availment of
credit and where credit itself is not availed, then interest is also
not payable. He has submitted that interest has always been
held to be compensatory for any loss incurred. In matters of
CENVAT credit, the duties/taxes paid by assessee already, has
been deposited in Government Treasury and becomes a part of
Consolidated Fund of India. When manufacturer of final products
takes credit of such taxes by making entries in their books of
accounts, it does not result in any loss of revenue to the
Government in as much as the amount deposited with the
exchequer is not depleted. In other words, Government does not
plan to lose any revenue by mere entry in books of accounts but
the loss occurs only when such credit is adjusted towards final
duty payment i.e., for utilisation. In support, they placed
reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner
of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Bill Forge Pvt.
Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar.). Further, he has submitted that
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
Page 5 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
of India vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.: 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC)
relied in the impugned order is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
3.1 On the issue of interest on delayed refund of
Rs.1,00,10,808/-, the learned advocate has submitted that the
appellant is entitled to interest from 17.09.2011, being three
months from the date of filing of the original refund claim to
21.11.2019, being the date of payment of the amount. He has
submitted that the Order-in-Original No.9/2011 dated
21.04.2011 did not confirm any duty against the credit of
Rs.1,00,10,808/- reversed by the appellant. Further, the said
order did not appropriate the excess credit reversed towards any
duty, therefore CENVAT credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- is refundable
to the appellant pursuant to the said order. Accordingly, they
filed refund claim on 17.06.2011, hence, interest is payable in
terms of Section 11BB of CEA, 1944.
3.3 Further, he has submitted that the appellant vide letter
dated 28.03.2019 requested the department to sanction the
refund consequent to the Order of the Tribunal has only sought
to inform to the department about the Final Order dated
18.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal and it is only for confirming
that the appellants are eligible for refund of interest amount,
hence the date of the Final Order of CESTAT cannot be adopted
as date for calculation of interest. In support, they have referred
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India : 2012(27)
STR 193 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the following
judgments:
• Union of India vs. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories:
2016 (333) ELT (SC)
• JK Cements Works vs. ACCE: 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj.)
affirmed in 2005 (179) ELT A150 (SC)
• Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. vs. UOI: 2016 (342) ELT 4
(All.)
Page 6 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
• Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd. vs. UOI: 2021-VIL-407-
BOM-ST
3.4 Through their written submissions, appellant has
submitted that even though they accept that the payment of
interest of Rs.88,22,475/- has been made in terms of Section 72
of the Finance Act, 2010, the same cannot be raised at this
juncture, since the Tribunal in its order dated 18.7.2019
analysed the issue and held that the payment of interest was not
warranted and the said Final Order has attained finality and no
appeal has been preferred against the same. The said amount of
interest held to be not payable by them hence to be refunded to
the appellant. Rebutting the contention of the learned AR for the
Revenue that the appeal could not be preferred against the order
dated 18.07.2019 because of monetary limit; it is submitted that
the said ground is irrelevant and the fact remains is that no
appeal has been preferred by the department against the said
order.
4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the
findings of the learned Commissioner (A). Further, the learned
AR for the Revenue has submitted that the appellants have paid
the interest amount of Rs.88,22,475/- voluntarily in the year
2010 and in compliance with Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010
and made an application to the department to consider payment
of said interest along with reversal of proportionate credit
attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted
products as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 6 of
CCR, 2004/2002 and consequently, the learned Commissioner
dropped the proceedings demanding duty of Rs.15,16,35,274/-
being 8% or 10% value of the exempted product after accepting
the reversal proportionate credit and interest on the said credit
as stipulated under Finance Act, 2010. It is his contention that
the appellants all along have been accepting liability of interest
being part of the compliance of Section 72 of the Finance Act,
2010 being paid along with proportionate credit in compliance of
Page 7 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
the remand Order of the Tribunal dated 19.08.2010. He has
further submitted that even though the Tribunal in the Order
dated 18.7.2019 recorded a passing remark about interest is not
warranted, however, no direction was issued to the department
for refund of the interest.
4.1 He has submitted that the authorities below after analysing
the earlier order dated 19.08.2010 and subsequent order and
the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that interest is not
refundable. It is not making out a new case at this stage but all
facts are recorded and part of the multiple proceedings arising
out of the same issue pending before various fora from time-to-
time. Therefore, cumulatively considering all aspects of the case
the refund of interest of Rs.88,22,475/- if allowed, it would be
contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 72 of the Finance
Act, 2010 and the first Order of Tribunal dt.19.8.2010. Further,
he has submitted that interest on refund amount of
Rs.1,00,10,808/- is applicable only after the Final Order dated
18.07.2019 was passed by the Tribunal and not from the date of
filing of refund claim.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The issues involved in both these appeals for
determination are whether: (i) the appellants are entitled for
refund of interest amount of Rs.88,22,475/- paid on the CENVAT
credit of Rs.83,10,886/- reversed as per Section 72 of Finance
Act, 2010 to avail the benefit of Retrospective amendment to
Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004; and (ii) interest on the excess credit
of Rs.1,00,10,808/- after expiry of three months from the date
of filing of refund i.e., from 17.9.2011 till 21.11.2019.
7. Undisputedly, the appellants had availed CENVAT credit
on inputs that were used in the manufacture of finished
products which are exempted and dutiable during the relevant
period 2000-2004. They have availed total credit of
Page 8 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
Rs.1,91,93,628/- between March 2002 to September 2004 on
the inputs which were used in the manufacture of wood pulp,
which in turn is used in the exempted product and dutiable
products. Consequently, a demand notice was issued on
14.10.2014 under Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004 for recovery of 8% or
10% of the value of the exempted goods i.e., Rayon Grade Wood
Pulp cleared to their Nagda unit without payment of duty. Before
adjudication of the said show-cause notice, on 6.11.2007 the
appellant reversed the entire amount of Rs.1,91,93,628/-.
Subsequently, on adjudication, i.e., on 23.1.2008, the
Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs.15,16,35,274/-
under Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004. They filed an appeal before the
CESTAT and vide Final Order No.1242/2010 dated 19.08.2010
remanded the matter observing as follows:
"3. Both sides submit that in the wake of enactment of sub-rule
(6) of CCR, 2002 and sub-rule (7) of CCR, 2004, the assessee is
required to pay the credit relatable to inputs used in the
manufacture of exempted final products during the period of
dispute. The appellants or the Revenue has no objection in
remanding the matter for re-determination of the liability in
terms of the said sub-rules. Both the sub-rules are similarly
worded and operate retrospectively. We reproduce the said sub-
rule (6) introduced in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002:
"(6) Where a dispute relating to adjustment of credit on
inputs used in or in relation to exempted final products
relating to the period beginning on the 1st day of March,
2002 and ending with the 9th day of September 2004
(both day inclusive) is pending on the date on which the
Finance Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1)
(2) and (3), a manufacturer availing CENVAT credit in
respect of any inputs, except inputs intended to be used
as fuel, and manufacturing final products which are
exempted goods, may pay an amount equivalent to
CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs used in, or in
relation to the manufacture of, exempted goods before or
after the clearance of such goods:
Provided that the manufacturer shall pay interest at the
rate of twenty four per cent per annum from the due date
till the date of payment of the said amount.
Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-rule, "due date"
means the 5th day of the month following the month in
which goods have been cleared from the factory."
Page 9 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
In the circumstances, we allow the appeal filed by M/s. Grasim
Industries Ltd. by way of remand. The impugned order is set
aside. The assessee is free to raise all the relevant grounds."
8. Thus, the Tribunal taking note of the retrospective
amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004/2002 by Finance Act, 2010
remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo
adjudication. After the Final Order dated 19.08.2010 of the
Tribunal remanding the matter, the appellant had paid an
amount of Rs.88,22,475/- towards interest at the rate of 24% on
the proportionate credit attributable to Royal Grade Wood Pulp
stock transferred to Nagda Unit amounting to Rs.83,10,886/- on
22.10.2010 to be eligible to claim the benefit of the
Retrospective amendment. On 25.10.2010 they filed necessary
application under Section 72(2) of the Finance Act, 2010
submitting that quantum of proportionate credit attributable to
Wood Pulp transferred to Nagda unit which amounted to
Rs.83,10,886/- which had been reversed being part of the total
amount of Rs.1,91,93,628/- being the credit availed on the
entire quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of Royal Grade
Wood Pulp earlier; and requested for recredit of the balance
amount of Rs.1,08,82,742/-. The learned Commissioner in the
de novo adjudication taking note of the retrospective
amendment vide Section 72 and 73 of Finance Act, 2010 dated
8.5.2010 which allowed the disputes to be settled in terms of the
amended provisions of the Rules and also taking note of the fact
that the appellant had already reversed a total amount of
Rs.91,82,820/-, appropriated the same and also the amount of
Rs.88,22,475/- paid as interest, dropped the proceedings with
regard to payment of Rs.15,16,35,274/- earlier confirmed under
Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004. Thus, it is clear that an amount of
Rs.88,22,475/- paid as interest by the appellant was in
compliance with the retrospective amendment to the relevant
CENVAT Credit Rules vide Section 72 and 73 of the Finance Act,
2010. Payment of interest is a condition mentioned in the said
Finance Act,2010 for approaching the department under the
retrospective amendment which has also been recorded by the
Page 10 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
Tribunal vide order 19.08.2010 while remanding the matter to
the learned Commissioner for de novo adjudication as mentioned
above. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order has
given a categorical finding on the payment of interest at the rate
of 24% as per the Finance Act, 2010 that the payment of
interest at the rate of 24% after apportioning the month-wise
credit during the period March 2002 to September 2004 duly
verified by the jurisdictional officer worked out to Rs.88,22,475/-
which was paid by the assessee against e-challan No.00006
dated 22.10.2004.
9. The claim of the appellant that even though the amount of
interest has been paid in compliance with Section 72 of the
Finance Act, 2010 giving retrospective effect by amending Rule 6
of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 allowing the assesses to
reverse proportionate credit with applicable interest to settle the
litigation saddled with huge amount of demands on 8% / 10% of
the value of the exempted product, the refund of the said
interest still be allowed in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal
dated 18.07.2019 and the Tribunal cannot the examine the said
issue in the present Appeals. The said contention of the
appellant deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that
taking note of their compliance with the requirement to avail the
facility of retrospective amendment, the adjudicating authority
in the denovo adjudication in the year 2011 recorded payment of
said interest and passed the order in favour of the appellant in
setting aside the demand of 8%/10% value of the product
following the statutory mandate of retrospective amendment
incorporated in Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010 where the
condition include reversal of proportionate credit with interest.
No mention in the said amendment on the fact of utilisation or
otherwise of the credit availed. Therefore, any judgment/Order
contrary to the said statutory provisions be per incuriam and
cannot be a binding precedent. Nevertheless, this Tribunal in its
order dated 18.07.2019 only recorded a general remark on the
principle without referring to retrospective amendment and also
Page 11 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
not directed to refund the interest irrespective of payment made
in pursuance to Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2010 in availing
the benefit of retrospective amendment. Since the interest has
been paid in pursuance to the Finance Act, 2010 along with proof
of reversal of proportionate credit pursuant to the order of
CESTAT dated 19.8.2010, to avail the benefit of the said
retrospective amendment, therefore, on the basis of a passing
remark by the subsequent Order of the Tribunal in 2019, in our
opinion, cannot make the appellant eligible to the refund of
interest of Rs.88,22,475/- which otherwise would result
reopening the case already closed in the denovo proceeding by
the Commissioner in the year 2011 pursuant to the remand of
the Tribunal dated 19.8.2010. Besides, no evidence has been
brought on record by the Appellant that they had filed refund
claim for the interest paid on the proportionate credit reversed
after the de novo order in 2011 along with the refund claim for
excess credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/- not allowed to them by the
Commissioner. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority,
to render complete justice, has a bounden duty to ascertain the
facts in its proper perspective and dispose the case accordingly.
10. As far as the applicability of interest on the excess credit of
Rs.1,00,10,808/-, we find that the learned Commissioner in the
impugned order dated 21.4.2011 observed that after
appropriation of the proportionate CENVAT credit of
Rs.91,82,820/-, the balance CENVAT credit of Rs.1,00,10,808/-
reversed by the appellant on 6.11.2007 cannot be restored as
they have not followed proper procedure by filing the refund
claim under Section 11B of CEA, 1944. Consequently, the
appellant filed the refund claim on 17.6.2011, therefore, the
appellants are entitled to interest on expiry of three months from
the date of filing of the refund claim in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, the Lordships
observed as follows:
Page 12 of 14
E/20357, 20465/2021
"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 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 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 v.
Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera
Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
(2010) 8 SCC 739].
.......
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 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.
Page 13 of 14E/20357, 20465/2021
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."
11. In view of the above, the impugned orders are modified by upholding the rejection of the refund of interest amount of Rs.88,22,475/- and setting aside the order denying interest on the refund application for Rs.1,00,10,808/- for the period after expiry of three months from the date of filing of refund. The appeals are disposed of on above terms.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 08.04.2024.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 14 of 14