Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Dynamic Industries Ltd vs C.C.E.- Ahmedabad-I on 1 December, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad ^^^ Appeal No. : E/11828/2013-SM [Arising out of OIA-18/2013/AHD-I/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD Dated 20/03/2013 Passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-I] Dynamic Industries Ltd. : Appellant(s) Vs C.C.E.- Ahmedabad-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
Appellant(s) : Shri Jigar Shah (Advocate) Respondent (s): Shri L.Patra. (Authorized Representative) For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Honble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 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 CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Honble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 01/12/2016 ORDER No. A/11628 / 2016 Dated: 01/12/2016 Per : Dr. D.M. Misra;
This is an Appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2013(Ahd-I) CE/AK/Commr(A)/Ahd, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-I dated 20/03/2013.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that alleging that the appellant had availed inadmissible credit of Rs. 28,66,666/- a Show Cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the same with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed. The matter was litigated upto this Tribunal and vide Order dated 11/06/2012, this Tribunal allowed their Appeal. Consequently, they filed a total refund claim of Rs. 31,74,019/- including interest of Rs. 3,05,353/-on the ground that rebate claim of Rs.28,66,666/- though sanctioned in October 2010, but adjusted by the department against the confirmed demand, accordingly, interest of Rs. 3,05,353/- is payable from the date of adjustment of the said rebate amount. Even though the said refund claim of Rs. 28,68,666/- was allowed by the department within three months from the date of its claim pursuant to the Tribunals Order dated 20/07/2012, but the claim for interest of Rs. 3,05,353/- was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an Appeal before the Learned Commissioner(Appeals), who in turn, rejected their Appeal. Hence the present Appeal.
3. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that since the department has erroneously adjusted the rebate claim of Rs. 28,68,666/-, though sanctioned on 08-10-2010/25-10-2010 but not paid to them, therefore, on their success in the Appeal against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 28,68,666/- before CESTAT, the appellant are eligible to interest under Section 11 BB Central Excise Act 1944 from the date of adjustment of the refund amount till the date of the order of the Tribunal. In Support, the Learned Advocate referred to the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chem Industry Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-I, Order No.811399 dated 31/10/2016.
4. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the Order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Heard both sides and perused the records, I find that the rebate claim of Rs. 28,68,666/- though sanctioned to the appellant on 08-10-2010 / 25-10-2010, but instead of paying that amount, it was adjusted against an Order dated 24/03/2010 against Service Tax dues. I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indu Nissan Oxo Chem Industry Ltd.(Supra). Accordingly, appellant is entitled to interest from the date of adjustment of the rebate claim. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Appeal allowed.
(Operative part of the Order Pronounced in open Court)
(D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial)
Abhishek
3