Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Surat-Ii vs Nemlaxmi Books India P Ltd on 7 September, 2018
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad
Appeal No. E/1580/2009, E/11631-11634/2018-DB
(Arising out of OIA No. KS/144-157/SRT-II/2009 dated 29/07/2009 passed
by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II)
C.C.E. & S.T., Surat-ii - Applicant
Vs.
Nemlakshmi Books (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Represented by:
For the appellant : Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Asst. Commr. (AR).
For the respondent : Shri Mukund Chouhan, CA CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 07/09/2018 ORDER NO. A/12421-12425/2018 Per: Ramesh Nair The common facts involved in all the appeals are that the respondent, is manufacturer of stationary items falling under chapter 48 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had exported 'Notebooks and Exercise Books" which are exempted from the Central Excise Duty. The goods were removed under Bond/LUT. They had availed Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the inputs used in the manufacture of the said final products exported.
They filed applications seeking refund of accumulated credit on account of exports as envisaged under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the credit so accumulated could not be utilized in the home clearances. Since, the rate of duty on paper (which is the input) is 12 percent ad valorem whereas the rate of duty on home consumption is 8 percent ad valorem. The case of the department is that the goods exported by the respondent are exempted from Central Excise duty. Therefore, there was no requirement of exporting the goods under Bond/LUT. Accordingly, the appellant's case is not covered under Rule 6 (6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules,
2 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB 2004 / Rule 6 (5)(vi) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly the respondent is not entitled to Cenvat Credit and consequently, no refund shall is not admissible. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim which was allowed by the Commissioner (A) by passing a very reasoned order and also relying on the Tribunal's Order in the respondent's own case reported as Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus. Surat Vs. Nemlaxmi Books India P. Ltd. 2009 (236) E.L.T. 260 (Tri- Ahmd.). Therefore, the present appeals by the Revenue.
2. Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. Asst. Commr. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He submits that the appellant's product being exempted from Excise duty was not supposed to be exported under Bond. Therefore, as per Rule 6, the appellant was not entitled for the Cenvat Credit. Accordingly, the refund of such Cenvat Credit does not arise.
3. Shri Mukund Chouhan, Ld. CA for the appellant appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the Ld. Commissioner (A) has passed very reasoned order wherein the provision of Rule 6 was analyzed in detail with Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules and Notification issued therein. As per the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (A) there is no scope for the Revenue to sustain their appeal.
4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue is lying in narrow compass that whether the respondent is entitled for the refund of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the exempted export goods in terms of rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We find that there is no dispute that the Revenue accepting proposal of the respondent to export the goods under Bond and the LUT allowed the export. Therefore, the export of goods under bond/ LUT is not under dispute. As per Rule 6 (6) (v) it is provided that if the goods are 3 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB exported under Bond/LUT Rule 6 (1), (2) and (3) are not applicable and the fact of the same is that though the goods manufactured and exported by the respondent is exempted but they are entitled for the Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs. It is also observed that as per notification 42/2001-CE (N.T.) dated 26/06/2001, manufacturer, exporter is required to export all excisable goods under Bond/ LUT. Therefore, even though the finished goods are exempted, the same is allowed to be exported under Bond/ LUT. Therefore, the availment of Cenvat Credit by the respondent is not objectionable.
Consequently, refund of the same is also admissible in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Ld. Commissioner (A) has given a detailed finding which is as under:
4. The case was posted for Personal Hearing. Shri Mukund Chauhan, C.A, appeared for the Appellants on 2.7.09 and was heard. He reiterated the arguments as made in the appeal memorandum. The main points submitted by him are as follows :-
i) Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 /Rule 6(5)(vi) of CCR 2002 excluded the applicability „of rule 6(1) of CCR 2004 in the case of export of excisable goods (which, as per Section 2(d) of CEA 1944 includes both dutiable and exempted goods) under Bond. Therefore, there was no bar in availment of Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempt goods viz, note books cleared for export. This aspect had been decided in their favour vide Commissioner (A), Central Excise & Customs, Surat-Il order No. RS/195/SRT-II/06 dtd.12.6.06 and upheld by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No.A-
829&830/WZB-AhmdJO7 dated 11.4.07 in Appeal No. E/2787/2006 in which the departmental appeal against the Commissioner (A)‟s said order was rejected.
ii) They, being manufacturer-exporters, were exporting their goods on execution of LUT which was in accordance with the Notfn.no.42/2001- CE(NT) dtd.26.6.2001 issued under rule 19 of CER. Such exports under LUT were to be taken on the same footing as exports under Bond. He relied upon Commissioner (A), Surat-Il order No.MS/367- 375/SRT-II/2007 dtd.27. 11.07 and OIA No. MS/376-377/SRT-II/2007 dtd.27.1 1.07 in this respect and submitted that the departmental appeal against the said orders was rejected vide Tribunal‟s Order No.A12356- 3 66/WZB/AHD/08 dtd.27. 10.08 in E/3 76-386/08.
(iii) The department had not filed any appeal against the Tribunal‟s orders mentioned at sr. no. (i) and (ii) above and therefore the position on these issues had become final in their own case and in the circumstances, it was not open to the lower authority to reopen the issue(s) and take another view on the basis of a different line of argument. In this regard he relied upon Supreme Court decision in the case of Jayaswala Neco Ltd v/s CCE, Nagpur reported in 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC), Indian Oil Corporation LTd v/s CCE, Vadodara -- 2006 (202) ELT 37 (SC), CCE, Navi Mumbai v/s Amar Bitmen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. -- 2006(202) ELT 213 (SC) and Boving Forest India Ltd v/s CCE, Chennai -- 2006 (202) ELT 389 (SC)
iv) In similar facts and circumstances where inputs were used in dutiable as well as exempted final products and the exempted products were also exported out of India, it was held by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd v/s UOI reported in 4 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Born) that in such a situation Rule 6(6)(v) of CCR 2004 was applicable in terms of which the bar provided under Rule 6(1) ibid for non-availmeñt of cenvat credit on inputs used in exempted goods is not applicable in such cases. It was also held in the said judgment that cenvat credit was available in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products being exported irrespective of the fact that the final products are otherwise exempt. He also cited the decisions of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE, Delhi- I v/s Punjab Stainless Steel -- 2009 (234) ELT 605 (Del), Tufropes Pvt Ltd v/s CCE, Vapi reported in 2009 (233) ELT 544 (Tri.-Ahmd), Jyoti Capsules v/s CCE, Kanpur - 2009 (236) ELT 667 (Tri-Del) and Jobelle v/s CCE, Mumbai-I -- 2006 (203) ELT 627 (Tri-Mum) wherein similar view had been taken by the concerned Courts (Tribunals).
v) Keeping in view the ratio of the decisions of various Courts/Tribunals on the issues involved in the present case as mentioned above, several of which were also cited at the original stage, following the principles of judicial discipline, the lower authority was required to decide the matter accordingly. However, without discussing the applicability of these decisions, the lower authority had acted in violation of the above principles and therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside on this count itself. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in CCE, Hyderabad v/s Novapan Industries Ltd -- 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC) and the decisions of the Tribunal in BPL Mobile Communication Ltd v/s CCE, Raigad -- 2007 (209) ELT 67 (Tn), Pals Micro Systems Ltd v/s CCE, Mangalore -- 2007 (212) ELT 373 (Tn-Bang).
4. I have gone through the impugned order, the Appeal memorandum and the submissions made by the Appellants during the Personal Hearing.
5. The Appellants had expontd exempted goods underLUT. They had availed Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the said exempt goods exported. Through Applications filed, they sought refund of Cenvat Credit accumulated oh account of export in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. It is observed that the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the above applications on the following grounds;
(i) Bond/LUT is not required when exempted go4ds are exported; therefore they are not covered under Clause (v)of Sub Rule 6 of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004 and hence they were not eligible for Cenvat Credit by virtue of Rule 6(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004.
(ii) Since no Cenvat Credit is allowed on such inputs, the question of accumulation and subsequent refund of the same under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not arise.
(iii) There is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules framed there under providing facility of refund claim of Cenvat Credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempt goods.
(iv) The Appellants were maintaining Separate records for the inputs/input services used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted products and CBEC Circular No.754/70/2003-CX dated 09.10.2003 clarifies that no credit can be taken on inputs/inputs services which are exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. 5.1 On the other hand, the appellants have contested the case on various grounds as mentioned in Para 3 above and on the grounds as submitted during Personal Hearing (Para 4 above). Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case and the contentions of the two sides, I find that the issue(s) involved in the present case are as follows :-
(i) Whether the exempted goods can be exported under Bond /LUT?
(ii) a) Whether clause (v) of sub Rule 6 of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which bars the applicability of rules 6(1), (2) and (3) ibid is applicable to the export of exempted 5 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB goods under Bond!LUT and whether cenvat credit could have been availed by the appellants in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods exported.
b)Whether CBEC Circular No.754/70/2003-CX dated 09.10.2003 in which it has been clarified that no credit can be taken on inputs/inputs services which are exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products is applicable in the present case.
(iii) Whether refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is admissible in respect of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods which are exported under Bond/LUT.
(iv) Whether the lower authority violated the principles of judicial discipline in passing the present impugned orders.
6. With regard to issue (i) in Para 5.1 above, regarding export of exempted goods under Bond/ LUT, I find that in an earlier case of the same Appellant, the above issue was decided by Commissioner(A) in favour of the appellant vide OIA No.MS/376-377/SRT-II/07 dated 27.11.07. The said decision was rendered on the basis of Notfn.No.42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under rule 19 of Central Excise Rule, 2001 and definition of "excisable goods" as per Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act. It is useful to refer to the relevant extracts from the said OIA which are as under
"5.3 The not notification no. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under rule 19 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 notifies the conditions and procedures for export of all excisable goods, except to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of duty from the factory of the production or the manufacture or warehouse or any other premises as may be approved by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Condition No. 1 of the said notification reads as under.
"1. Conditions:
(i) that the exporter shall furnish a general bond in the Form specified in Annexure-I to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.................... The manufacturer-exporter may furnish a letter of undertaking in the Form specified in Annexure-Il in lieu of a bond."
From perusal of the above, it is clear that the letter of undertaking in the form UT-1 is to be used by the manufacturer- exporter for the export of all excisable goods.
5.4 in this connection 1 also refer section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which reads as under
"(d) "excisable goods" means goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tarff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt"
5.5 In view of above, it is clear that the all goods specified in the Central Excise Tariff are excisable goods whether it is dutiable or exempted. The Letter of Undertaking in the Form UT-1 is therefore valid for the export of all excisable goods i.e. dutiable as well as exempted goods. The validity of the LUT therefore cannot be restricted for the export of exempted goods i.e. goods attracting "nil" rate of duty in the Central Excise Tariff. The letter issued by the Range Superintendent is, therefore, not maintainable in law. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed."
6.1 The Department filed an appeal against the above mentioned OIA with the Tribunal which was decided vide Hon‟ble Cestat‟s Order No. 6 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB A/2356-2366/WZB/AHD/08 dated 27. 10.08 in E1376-386/08 resulting in rejection of the Appeal filed by the department. The Appellants have contended that the Department has not filed any appeal against the Tribunal‟s said decision. There is nothing on record to the contrary. In the circumstances the said issue has become final vis-à-vis the present appellants and it was neither correct nor proper for the lower authority to have taken a different view.
7. Similarly with regard to the issue at (ii)(a) in Para 5.1 above, it is observed that a similar issue was involved in a refund claim of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 pertaining to an earlier period which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner Olpad, interalia, on the ground that as per rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input services which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted service and when Cenvat credit itself is not allowed, the question of accumulation and refund of same does not arise. On appeal by the party (appellants herein), the related 010 was set aside by Commissioner (Appeal), Surat-Il vide OJA No. RS/195/SRT-II/2006 dated 12.06.2006 wherein it was held that Rule 6(6) (v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies to exports of excisable goods without payment of duty, including export of exempted goods, under Bond/LUT, and that the Rule bars the applicability of Rule 6(1), (2), (3) and (4) in such cases and therefore there was no bar to the availment of Cenvat credit (in such cases) and refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 ibid subject to the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. The department filed appeal against the above OIA and the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide F.0.No. A1829 and 830/WZB/AHVD/07 dated 04.04.07 in Appeal No. E/2787/2006 and E/C0/01/2006 on the ground that no merit was found in the revenue appeal. The Appellants have contended that the Department has not filed any appeal against the Tribunal‟s said decision. There is nothing on record to the contrary. In the circumstances the said issue (ii)(a) has also become final vis-à-vis the present appellants and it was neither correct nor proper for the lower authority to have taken a different view.
7.1 In this connection, it is also observed that in similar facts and circumstances where inputs were used in dutiable as well as exempted final products and the exempted products were being entirely exported out of India, it was held by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd v/s U0I reported in 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom.) that in such a situation exports could be made under LUT, that in such situation Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was applicable in terms of which the bar provided under Rule 6(1) ibid for non-availment of Cenvat credit on inputs used in exempted goods is not applicable. It was also held in the said judgment that Cenvat credit was available in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products being exported irrespective of the fact that the final products are otherwise exempt. The appellants have also relied on the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE, Delhi-I v/s Punjab Stainless Steel
-- 2009 (234) ELT 605 (Del) and those of the Tribunal in Tufropes Pvt Ltd v/s CCE, Vapi reported in 2009 (233) ELT 544 (Tri-Ahmd), Jyoti Capsules v/s CCE, Kanpur - 2009 (236) ELT 667 (Tri-Del) and Jobelle v/s CCE, Mumbai-I -- 2006 (203) ELT 627 (Tn-Mum) wherein similar view as above was taken by the concerned Courts/Tribunals. On going through these cases, I find that the reliance placed by the appellants on the said decisions in the present context is appropriate and the ratio of these is applicable to the present case.
7.2 As regards the issue at (ii)b of Para 5.1 above, namely, the applicability of CBEC Circular No.754/70/2003-CX dated 09.10.2003 to the present matter, the said circular clarifies that no credit can be taken on inputs which are exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. In the present case the appellants are 7 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB manufacturing both exempted goods and dutiable goods. As provided under Rule 6 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they are availing Cenvat credit of the duty on the common inputs used in the manufacture of both exempted goods and dutiable goods and are maintaining separate accounts as required under the said Rule. While they avail Cenvat on inputs used in exempted goods exported, they do not avail Cenvat on inputs used in exempted goods cleared for domestic clearance on nil duty. As the present case is not one where the appellants are taking credit on inputs which are exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products, the said circular is not attracted in the present case.
8. As regards the issue at (iii) of Para 5.1 above, namely, the admissibility of refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the safeguards, conditions and limitations subject to which refund of Cenvat credit of inputs /input services utilized in the manufacture of export products is to be allowed are specified in the Notfn.no.5/2006- CE (NT) dtd.14.3.06 issued under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the present case, other than the objections as at (i) and (ii) above, neither the SCN nor the impugned OLOs refers to any of the other conditions as specified in the above mentioned Notification issued under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 having been contravened /violated. In the facts and circumstance of the case and as in view of the fact that the objections at (i) and (ii) of Para 5.1 above are found to be not sustainable (due to various reasons as discussed in para 6 and Para 7 above and their various Sub-paras), I hold that the rejection of the refund claim under Rule 5 ibid is not legally sustainable.
9. It is observed that in coming to his conclusion, the Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ichalkaranji Machine Centre Pvt. ltd., Vs Collector, 2004(l74)ELT 417 and Eicher Motor Ltd., 1999 (10) ELT 3 (SC). On going through the said judgments, it is observed that these cases were dealing with issues entirely different from the issues as involved in the present case and certain general observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court with regard to the purpose of the Modvat/Cenvat Credit scheme were interpreted out of context by the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, in the Ichalkaranji Machine Centre case, the issue involved was regarding availability of Concessional Duty in terms of Para (a)(i) of Notification No. 175/86-CE when assessee was not availing/eligible for Modvat Credit. Similarly, in the Eicher Motor Ltd. case, the issue was regarding lapsing of Modvat Credit lying unutilized with the manufacturers on 16.03.1995 in the manner laid down in Rule 57F (iv) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.
9.1 In the Ichalkaranji judgment, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, while deciding the specific issue as involved in that case, had observed that "The object of the Modvat scheme was to reduce cost of final product by taking credit for the duty paid on the inputs." and utilize it in the payment of duty on final product. The above general observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the Inchalkaranji Machine Centre case and similar observations in the Eicher Motor Ltd., case have been interpreted by the Adjudication authority as implying that Cenvat Credit was not admissible in respect of exempted goods exported under Bond/LUT and for non admissibility of refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 in respect of accumulated credit. However, no reasoning has been given by him as to how these inferences follow from the general observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court as above and why the specific provisions and judicial decisions on the specific issues involved that were cited before him in the matter would not be applicable. It is well settled that judicial decisions lay down a 8 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB precedent/ratio in respect of the particular issue that is decided in that case. While the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in course of its judgments are in the nature of obiter dicta and have persuasive value while interpreting law, yet these cannot be interpreted out of context, and without giving any reasoning as to why a particular inference follows from the said observations, as done by the lower authority in the present case. It was therefore, incorrect for the lower authority to have drawn conclusions regarding the specific issues involved in the present case on the basis of the said general observations of the Honble Apex Court during the course of its judgment on altogether different issues and in an altogether different context. The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority becomes all the more inappropriate considering that the specific issues involved in the present case are governed by specific provisions and in respect of which the issues had already been decided by the appellate authority in the party‟s own case and Departments appeals against the said OlAs were rejected by the Tribunal and these decisions as well as other judicial decisions directly on the particular issues involved in the case were also cited before him but these were totally disregarded by the Adjudicating Authority.
9.2 I, therefore, find that the reliance placed by the lower authority on the cited decisions of\ the Apex Court is misplaced and does not support view taken by the lower authority. It is also quite clear that in passing the impugned OlOs, the adjudicating authority has violated the principles of judicial discipline.
10. In view of the discussion and findings in the foregoing paras, it is held that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that Cenvat cannot be availed on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods exported under Bond/LUT and that the appellants are not entitled to the refund in the present cases under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is also observed that once an issue decided in the case of an appellant by a higher Appellate Authority attains finality, following the principles of judicial discipline, the ratio of the said decision is required to be followed in quasi judicial proceedings by the lower authorities. As the Cestat‟s referred Order dated 27.10.2008 upholding the validity of Bond/LUT for export of exempted goods and the Cestat‟s Order dated 4.04.07 holding that Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applicable to exports of excisable goods, including export of exempted goods, under Bond/LUT, had attained finality in the appellants own case, from which it followed that Rule 6(1) ibid was barred in such cases and consequently, the appellants were eligible to avail the Cenvat credit (on inputs in question) and refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under rule 5 ibid (subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein), the Adjudicating Authority‟s order taking a different view in the present cases is violative of the principle of judicial discipline. In this context, the reliance placed by the appellants on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v/s Novapan Industries Ltd -- 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC) is apt. The importance of judicial discipline in quasi judicial proceeding is brought out succinctly in the following extract from the Apex Court judgment in the case of UoI v/s Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) which the lower authority has failed to follow in the present case. -- "It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial 9 E/1580/2009-DB E/11631-11634/2018-DB discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities."
11. The Appellants have sought interest on the amounts of refund involved in the instant case. The provisions of Section 11 BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the explanation thereto are quite clear in that order passed by higher appellate authority in cases of refund under section 11B of the Act shall be treated as an order issued under Section 11 BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to interest for the period from the ninety first day from the date of filing of the relevant Refund Applications to the date on which the refund is granted to the Appellants, by virtue of this order.
12. In light of the discussion and findings above, the impugned orders are set aside and I allow all the present appeals with consequential relief to the Appellants. The Adjudicating Authority shall grant the refund arising out of all the appeals decided herein, together with interest in terms of Section 11 BB of Central Excise Act, 1944."
On going through the above finding we do not find any infirmity therein and we are completely in agreement with the view taken by the Ld. Commissioner. Without prejudice to our above finding, we also observed that except the one appeal no. E/11633/2018 which involve refund amount of Rs.
20,22,895/- in all other appeals, the amount involved is less than 20 lakhs, therefore, all those appeals are not maintainable also in view of Government's litigation policy issued vide circular no. F.No. 390/Misc/116/2012 dated 11/07/2018. As per our above discussion, all the appeals are dismissed. CO also stands disposed off.
(operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court) (Raju) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) DS