Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Allahabad vs M/S Reliance Industries Ltd on 7 May, 2010
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-III SINGLE MEMBER BENCH Date of hearing/decision:7.5.2010 Central Excise Appeal No.588 of 2008-SM Arising out of the order in appeal No.215-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 22.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad. For Approval and Signature: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes C.C.E., Allahabad . Appellant Vs. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.N. Srivastava, Authorised Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue and Shri Tarun Gulati, Advocate with Shri K. Kunal, Advocate for the respondent Coram: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member Oral Order No.____________________ Per M. Veeraiyan:
This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 215-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 22.12.2007.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the provisional assessment relating to the period July 1996 to October, 1998 was finalised vide order dated 24.11.2004 and consequently, the respondent filed a refund claim on 8.12.2004. The said claim was latter sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner consequent to favourable order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24.8.06. However, the Deputy Commissioner did not grant interest and against this decision the party filed appeal. Subsequently, in pursuance of the remand proceedings, the Deptuy Commissioner vide order dated 10.9.07 granted interest relating to the period from 27.11.06 to 7.2.2007 that is from three months after the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.8.06. The party filed appeal against the order not sanctioning interest from 8.3.05 and the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the interest from 8.3.2005.
4. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the refund claim was due in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, interest was due only from 27.11.2006 and the same has been paid. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning the interest for the period from 8.3.05 to 26.11.2006 is erroneous and requires to be set aside.
5. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is with reference to the refund claim dated 8.12.2004 and therefore, the interest has been rightly allowed from 8.3.2005 that is after three months from the date of application for refund. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prime Automation (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T., Ahmedabad reported in 2009 (235) ELT 129 (Tri-Ahmd.) and the decision the Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.K. Cement Works reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj.), against which the SLP filed by the Department has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (179) ELT A 150 (SC).
6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The entire dispute before the lower authorities was undisputedly with reference to the refund claim filed by the respondent on 8.12.2004. The original authority initially rejected the claim which was subsequently allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the refund is only with reference to the claim originally filed by the respondent on 8.12.2004. In Prime Automation (India) Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal has held that when the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund rejected by the order of the original authority, the interest liability should be determined with reference to the date of the claim. Such a view has been upheld by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of J.K. Cement Works, as submitted by the learned Advocate.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in granting interest fom 8.3.2005 that is from a date after three months after filing of refund claim.
8. The appeal by the Department is, therefore, rejected.
(M. Veeraiyan) Technical Member scd/ 4