NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved