Bom. HC: Maharashtra Govt Criticized for Exhibiting Mindset to Curtail Liberty of Undertrials  ||  Ori. HC: Stay of Execution Proceedings Under Arbitration Act Governed by Provisions of CPC  ||  SC: Intricate Enquiry Whether Claims are Time Barred Must Not be Conducted by Referral Courts  ||  Mad. HC: Proposed Changes in Criminal Laws Could have been Brought Through Amendments  ||  Bom. HC: Govt’s Decision to Exempt Pvt. Schools From 25% RTE Quota 'Unconstitutional'  ||  Ker. HC: To Proceed Against an Offence Committed Partly in India, Sanction of Centre Not Required  ||  Del. HC: Court to Take up Matter Referred to Arbitral Tribunal if Urgency Occurs  ||  Guj. HC: Asking Unknown Woman her Name, Address Doesn’t Constitute Sexual Harassment  ||  SC: In Cases of Long Incarceration, Watali Judgement Cannot be Cited as a Precedent  ||  Kerala HC: BNSS to be Applicable in all Criminal Appeals after 1st July, 2024    

Atmiya Engineering And Plastics vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (05 Apr 2022)

Date of filing of refund application needs to be taken for grant of interest

MANU/CS/0077/2022

Excise

The issue involved is whether the Appellant is entitled for interest in respect of the refund claim already granted. The brief facts of the case are that, the Appellant has claimed remission of duty in respect of goods destroyed. In the said process, they were asked to reverse the Cenvat Credit of inputs contained in the destroyed goods. Accordingly, they reversed the credit some part of it from PLA and some part of it from Cenvat account, thereafter, they claimed refund of the said reversal on the belief they were not supposed to reverse the credit. The Appellant filed a refund claim which was rejected and subsequently Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim.

Thereafter, the appellant approached the department by way of a letter with reference to their earlier refund claim, the department has sanctioned the refund claim on 14th June, 2018. The appellant being of bonafide belief that they are entitled for the interest from the three months after the filing of refund claim, the claimed the interest, which was rejected on the ground that since, the refund claim was granted within 3 months from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, no interest is payable. Being aggrieved by the rejection of claim of interest, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the view of original authority and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the Appellant.

There is no dispute in the fact that, the Appellant had filed a refund claim on 11th June, 2018 which was though rejected by the original authority but allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). If there is any delay in sanction of the refund claim from the date of filing application, the appellant is entitled for the interest from the date of filing of refund claim till the date of sanction.

The Revenue's contention is that they have granted the refund within three months form the date of Commissioner (Appeals) order. Once the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund, the appellant was entitled for the refund right from the date of filing of the application. Therefore, for the purpose of interest, it is not the date of Commissioner (Appeals) order, but it is the date of filing of refund application needs to be taken. Accordingly, the Appellant is entitled for the interest on the refund. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : REFUND   INTEREST   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved