In this case, interest on the repayment for the period following the Commissioner`s order (appeal) on the basis of which the repayment became due was reduced and interest was not penalised. Thus, we conclude that both the facts and the issue at issue are different. It follows from the foregoing that, in the normal course of reimbursement resulting from the completion of the preliminary assessment, a decision would be made within the meaning of Rule 9B, but if a refund is made on the basis of a challenge to an order made under Rule (5) of Rule 9(B), that claim or reimbursement would be governed by Article 11A or Article 11 B. The same view was expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the Contemporary Packaging Technologies case P Ltd at paragraphs 18, 18.1 and 18.2 (above). (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or aircraft in which the goods are loaded leaves India or (ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which the goods cross the border; or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of dispatch of the goods by the post office concerned to a place outside India; (b) in the case of goods returned to a plant for post-processing, processing, refurbishment or any other similar process, the date of entry into the plant for the above-mentioned purposes; (c) in the case of goods on which banners must be affixed when they are taken over for captive use, but not . 2. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the complainant had a classification dispute with the levy. It was argued that fodder-grade diclacium phosphate was classified under heading 2302 of the Central Excise Duty Act and was therefore not subject to a tax rate, whereas the revenue claimed that those products were classified under heading 2835 and were subject to central excise duty. The complainant paid the central excise duty from 19.10.1996 in protest. On 07.07.1997, the appellant applied to the High Court of Gujarat.
The Gujarat High Court instructed the appellant to clear the goods on the basis of an interim valuation in accordance with Rule 9B of the Central Excise Regulations on the payment of 50% of the duty and to provide a bank guarantee for the amount other than the tax. By decision of 06.01.1998, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled on the appellant`s appeal and decided that the goods were properly classified under item 2302 and that the complainant had therefore ceased the tax. On 29.07.1998, the applicant filed a claim for reimbursement in the amount of Rs 1, 76, 04.008/- for duties paid under dispute between 19.10.1996 and 21.01.1998. After some disputes on 05.03.2008, Deputy Commissioner Vapi finally authorized the repayment of Rs. 83,41,421/- by cash repayment and an amount of Rs 73,64,370/- as a loan in the Cenvat register totalling Rs 1,57,05,791/-. On 01.05.2008, the complainant raised a claim for interest for late repayment, since the request for reimbursement was filed on 15.07.1998, while it was sanctioned on 05.03.2008. On 19.06.2008, the complainant was granted an SNA with the proposal to reject the interest claim on the ground that the amount had been repaid in accordance with Rule 9B of the Regulations after the completion of the preliminary assessment and that Section 11BB of the Act was not applicable to refunds under Rule 9B. The application for interest was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 26.03.2009.
The complainant filed a complaint with the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31.12.2009. This action was dismissed by the Commissioner (appeal) on the basis that the claim for reimbursement was admissible under section 9B of the old rule and not under section 11B of the Act and that there was therefore no reason to bear interest on the late repayment, since Rule 9B of the old rule did not contain such interest provisions. The applicant aggrieved by that decision is pending before the Court. “8. It is apparent from the above facts that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to a refund of Rs 28,94,776 under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act provides that if a tax to be refunded to an applicant under subsection (2) of section 11B is not refunded within three months of receipt of the application under subsection (1) of this section, interest equal to that rate of at least five per cent, shall be paid to that applicant. and a maximum of thirty per cent, per year as determined by the central government, by notification in the Official Journal of that fee from the day immediately following the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application until the date of refund of that fee. Thus, on a simple reading of the provisions of Paragraph 11BB of the Law on central excise duty, it appears that that provision provides for the payment of interest from the date immediately following the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for reimbursement until the date of refund of that tax. In the present case, it is recognised that the application for reimbursement was submitted on 24.1.2005 and that the amount was reimbursed on 12.11.2010. However, interest on the repayment of Rs.
28,94,776/- was paid in relation to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal for the period from 24-4-2005 to 2-6-2008, and interest from 3-6-2008 to the date of actual payment, i.e. 10-3-2010, was not paid because this amount had been transferred to the Consumer Protection Fund in accordance with the order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). It can be seen that the facts of the said case are significantly different. That case concerned whether the three months of calculation of interest should be counted from the date of the claim for repayment or from three months following the date of the final order on the basis of which repayment becomes due. 12. As regards the facts and circumstances of the present case, although reimbursement was ordered under Article 5 of the Rules of Procedure and there was a delay in approving the reimbursement, in those circumstances the provisions of Article 11BB of the Act were clearly invoked and, as such, the General Court held that: that the provisions of clause (c) of the reservation in Article 11B(2) and, consequently, in Article 11BB of the Law are clearly applicable to the facts of the case and, as such, the defendant is entitled to interest on the late repayment of the Cenvat credit which he has requested. » 9. Under Article 11BB of the Central Excise Act, defendants are required to pay interest at the prescribed rate immediately after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application until the date of refund of that tax, which in this case is from 24.4.2005 to 10.3.2010. The respondent`s argument is that as of 3.6.2008, the amount was transferred to the Consumer Protection Fund and that, as a result, the revenue obligation to pay interest was fulfilled. According to the referring court, such an argument cannot be accepted on the ground that Paragraph 11BB of the Law on central excise duty provides for the payment of interest after a period of three months from the date of application to the date of actual payment. The law does not provide for a shortening of the period during which interest is paid due to super profit circumstances, such as the transfer of the amount to the Consumer Protection Fund. The defendant`s learned counsel is not in a position to refer to a provision of the Act that states that the transfer of the amount to the consumer protection fund would shorten the period during which the appraiser would be entitled to interest under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
It is entirely legal that, as far as the tax provision is concerned, it must be interpreted strictly and that it is sufficient to look at what is said in the relevant provisions; there is nothing to read; nothing to imply and there is no room for an intention. After a simple reading of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that the purpose of such a provision is to provide for the payment of interest to a party from a period of three months from the date of the application to the date of the actual refund. The reason is not exaggerated, namely that a party should not be disadvantaged by a delay in deciding the application or by the justification that the party must challenge the repayment order in another forum. With regard to the transfer of the amount to the Consumer Protection Fund, it is clear that the Commissioner`s decision (appeal) finding the existence of unjust enrichment was found to be erroneous and repealed. In these circumstances, the applicant should not be prejudiced by an erroneous order of the defendant authority. without the petitioner being in default. With a simple reading of the law, the applicant is entitled to interest from the date specified in the Statute. The General Court was therefore not entitled to find that, from the date on which the amount was transferred to the Consumer Protection Fund, the applicant was not entitled to the payment of interest on the amount of the refund. The applicant would therefore be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.
28,94,776/- from 24-4-2005 until actual payment, that is to say until 10-3-2010. 3. Learned AR argued that the reimbursement in the present case was penalised under Rule 9B and that, therefore, the provisions of Article 11BB are not applicable to the present case. It relied on Excel Rubber Ltd – 2011 (268) ELT 419 (Tri. LB). He also relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Contemporary Packaging Technologies P Ltd -2014 (299) ELT 439 (Guj.). It also relied on the Court`s decision in Pleasant Foods P Ltd- 2008 (231) ELT 576 (Tri.-Chennai) and Karnataka Pressure Vessels P Ltd – 2017 (347) ELT 159 (Tri.-Bang).
