Interest on the refund of duty to be refunded to the assessee after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the final order and not from date of payment of duty under protest?

Case:- M/s SHAKUN OVERSEAS LTD VS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Citation:-2013-TIOL-609-HC-MAD-CUS

Brief Facts:-These batch of appeals, preferred at the instance of the assessees , arise out of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. This Court, by order dated 30.3.2012 admitted these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, on the following substantial questions of law:
The appellants herein are importers of mulberry raw silk. The appellants filed their Bill of Entry in respects of their imports along with the documents to show that the declared price was in terms of the transaction value. However, the said valuation was not accepted by the Authorities. With the result, the assessees paid the enhanced value under protest and the goods were cleared. Thereafter, the assessees preferred appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). After taking into consideration the various materials placed by the assessees, the first Appellate Authority, by order dated 30.9.1992, allowed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeals before the CEGAT. The Tribunal, by order dated 01.8.1997, set aside the order of the first Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to the original Authority for de novo consideration.
Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the assessees preferred Writ Petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.15621 and 15622 of 1997. By order dated 02.02.1998, this Court allowed the Writ Petitions directing the Tribunal to decide the case afresh.
It is a matter of record that considering the order passed by this Court on 02.02.1998 in W.P.Nos.15621 and 15622 of 1997 allowing the Writ Petitions thereby setting aside the order of the CEGAT dated 01.08.1997 on valuation, once again the appeals were taken up for consideration by the CEGAT . By order dated 17.3.1999, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' claim, thereby rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. With the result, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dated 30.09.1992 was confirmed accepting the value declared by the assessees on the imports made.
It is a matter of record that in the meantime, the assessees made applications to Assistant Collector (Customs) on 12.3.1993 claiming refund of the excess duty of Rs.7 ,59,786 /- and Rs.1,95,138 /- with interest at 20% per annum from the date of deposit. The assessees again approached this Court for disposal of that applications in W.P.Nos.7349 and 7950 of 1993 and W.P.Nos.13536 and 13539 of 1994 for a direction to the Assistant Collector (Customs) for refund of the excess duty amount. The claim of the assessees, was, however, rejected by the Assistant Collector (Customs) on 16.12.1994 and directed the amount to be taken to the Consumer Welfare Fund. As against this, the assessees went on appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in C3 /17 to 25/95. By order dated 6.6.1995, the Commissioner (Appeals) partially refunded a sum of Rs.4,30,388 /- out of Rs.7,59,785 /- in respect of M/ s. Shakun Overseas Ltd. and refunded the entire amount of Rs.1,95,139 /- in respect of M/ s. Siddarth Internationals.
It is also a matter of record that on appeal preferred by the assessees, the CEGAT passed an order dated 27.1.1995 on the refund claim and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by order dated 12.8.1999 dismissed all the appeals. As against that, the assessees once again preferred appeals before the CEGAT. By order dated 28.8.2001, the CEGAT allowed the appeals in C/405 to 411 and 412 to 413 of 1999, thereby set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Following the decisions Mafatlal Industries Ltd. V. UOI (1997) 89 ELT 247 (SC) = ( 2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX ); UOI V. Solar Pesticides (P) Ltd. (200 (116) ELT 401-SC = (2002-7-z0L-57-sc-cx)and Addision 8( Co. V. CCE Madras (2001) 129 ELT 44-Madras, the Tribunal held that the incidence of duty in all these cases had not been passed on to the actual customers and the same had been borne by the importerthemselves. Thus, while allowing the appeals on refund, the Tribunal observed that the assessee was entitled to the consequential relief. Based on the order thus passed by the Tribunal, the assessees, once again, preferred petitions on 24.10.2001, claiming refund with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
It is seen from the documents placed before this Court that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed an order on 12.3.2002 granting refund of duty payment alone without any interest. Aggrieved by this, the assessees wrote a letter on 15.3.2002, wherein they claimed that the duty payment being under protest, interest at 15% from the date of payment of duty was to be made. The prayer of the assessees was once again reiterated under letter dated 26.4.2002. Since there was no further action, the assessees preferred Miscellaneous Petitions before the CESTAT and contended that when the Tribunal had allowed the appeals directing relief as well as consequential relief, the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to go behind the order, but was duty bound to pay the interest on the entire refund amount. Thus, the relief granted by the Deputy Commissioner ordering refund of the principal amount was not in accord with the orders passed by the Tribunal; consequently, the assessees sought for clarification from the Tribunal and to direct the Revenue to grant consequential benefits of refund with interest at 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
By order dated 11.12.2006, the CESTAT disposed of the applications directing the Revenue to pay interest on the duty amount from 22.1.2002 to 12.3.2002. The Tribunal pointed out that though the applications made did not specifically sought for a direction to the lower Authorities for payment of interest, yet, in terms of the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench reported in 2004 (164) ELT 156 (Tri.LB) =(2003-TIOL-234-CESTAT-DEL- u3)(Indian Thermoplastics (P) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata) , wherein the relevant date for computation of interest on the duty refunded to the assessee was held to be the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the relevant final order of the Tribunal, the payment of interest could be only from 22.1.2002 to 12.2002 and not prior to that period. Aggrieved by this, the assessees have come before this Court by preferring the above appeals.

Appellant Contentions:-Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants placed strong reliance on the decision reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292) Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited V. Union of India and others as well as on the decision reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj) ( J. K. Cement Works V. Asstt . Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) , which was confirmed by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2131 of 2008 filed by the Revenue as against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that in view of the Supreme Court decision confirming the Rajasthan High Court decision, the claim of the assessees for interest on the refund of the excess duty paid from the date of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) at the first round of litigation allowing the assessees' appeals could not be, in any manner, be rejected. He pointed out that the provisions of Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, are in pani materia to the provisions under Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act; consequently, the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292 = 2011-770L-105-SC-OC )(Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited V. Union of India and others) would apply in fairness to the understanding of the provisions on payment of interest under the Customs Act. He further pointed out that after the order in the Writ Petitions allowing the assessees' case and remanding the matter back to the CEGAT , the claim of the assessees was accepted by the Tribunal, thereby the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. In which event, the order of the Collector of Customs allowing the assessees' appeals having attained finality, in all fairness to the claim of the assessees , refund should have been made from the date of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), as had been held in the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj) ( J.K.Cement Works V. Asstt . Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) . He further pointed out that the payment of duty itself was under protest. Thus going by Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act read with the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292 =( 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX ) (Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited V. Union of India and others) , the rejection of claim for grant of interest by the Tribunal is totally devoid of merits.

Reasoning of judgment:-We do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants. Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act deal with claim for refund of duty and interest on the belated refunds respectively. A reading of Section 27 of the Customs Act shows that any person claiming refund of any duty paid pursuant to an order of assessment or otherwise has to make an application for refund of such duty within a period of six months or one year, as the case may be, as provided for under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Section 27(2) states that on receipt of the application, when the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the duty paid by the assessee (duty + interest), if any, is refundable, he may make an order accordingly. Section 27A of the Customs Act, in fact, provides for time limit within which the application be disposed of, failing which the assessee would be entitled to claim interest.The relevant portion of Section 27 as well as Section 27 A read as under:
"SECTION 27. Claim for refund of duty.
(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty
( i ) paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment; or
(ii) borne by him,
may make an application for refund of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs
………
………
Providedalso that where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction.
Section 27 (2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund.
SECTION 27A. Interest on delayed refunds- If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five percent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty :
Provided that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty.
Explanation. -Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs under sub-section (2) of section 27, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under that sub-section for the purposes of this section."
A reading of Explanation to Section 27A read with Section 27(2) of the Customs Act shows that where an order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any Court against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, the order of refund passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be an order passed under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Customs for the purposes of grant of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act. The fourth proviso to Section 27 of the Customs Act states that where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal, or any Court, the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction. Thus, while Section 27 of the Customs Act speaks about the limitation for preferring refund claim consequent on the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the quantum appeal, Section 27A is about the refund order passed by the Appellate Authority on appeal consequent on the rejection by the original authority. Thus, if an application has to be made claiming refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, particularly in a case arising consequent on the order of the Appellate Authority, the limitation, hence, has to be worked out as per the fourth proviso to Section 27 of the Customs Act. In this case, going by the admitted fact that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was finally disposed of on 17.03.1999, the claim can properly be said to arise only consequent on the order of the Appellate Authority, namely, CEGAT dismissing the Revenue's appeal and not the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Thus, till such time the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on merits, the assessees could not lay their claim for refund, solely on the basis of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
As already noted in the preceding paragraph, on the Writ Petitions filed before this Court, the first order of the Tribunal dated 01.08.1997 was set aside by this Court and the matter was restored to the CEGAT for de novo consideration and only thereafter, in the year 1999, the Tribunal accepted the case of the assessees on valuation and allowed the assessees' appeals. Thus, in stricto senso , the claim for refund would arise only from 1999 and not before. It is no doubt true that the assessees made applications for refund consequent on their appeals being allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). But then, when the matter was taken on appeal by the Revenue , the assessees can validly lay their claim only in the year 2001 when after the order of this Court setting aside the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Thus reading Section 27A of the Customs Act on the application made validly by the assessees on 24.10.2001, the said applications thus having got to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such applications, the question of interest payable on the belated refund would have to be governed by the provisions under Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act. As is evident from the reading of Section 27A of the Customs Act, if the authority does not dispose of the application within a period of three months, Section 27A would come into play and the assessee would be entitled to interest not less than 15% and not exceeding 30% per annum, as fixed by the Central Government by notification on the official gazette from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. It is a matter of relevance that on the dismissal of the assessees' claim by the Tribunal dated 01.08.1997, wherein the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in the first round of litigation, the claim by the assessee could not be said to be alive for all practical purposes. It is only after the order of the Tribunal dated
17.03.1999 dismissing the Revenue's appeal that the right of the assessees to claim refund could surface.
Going by the clear provisions available under Section 27A of the Customs Act, we hold that the assessees would be entitled to interest on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application to the date of refund of such duty and on no account they would be entitled to interest on the amount paid under protest from the date of payment, as had been claimed by them. We also make it clear that the refund claim could be validly held to be made only on the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal and not any date prior to that, which means, the date on which the order was passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) would not be of relevance for the purpose of limitation.
In this connection, the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, viz., Section 11B, which relates to the claim of refund of excise duty, needs to be seen. A reading of the said provision shows that any person claiming refund of excess duty and interest paid on such duty has to make an application for refund before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The relevant date is defined under Clause (B) to Explanation to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants seeks to draw inspiration from the definition of 'relevant date', particularly sub-clause (f) to Clause (B) for the purpose of claiming interest herein. The said provision has no relevance for the purpose of understanding Section 27 of the Customs Act, which stands differently worded. Thus, considering the provision under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292 = 2011-Tr0L-105-sc-oc )(Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited V. Union of India and others) as well as on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj) ( J.K.Cement Works V. Asstt . Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) merits to be seen.
The decision reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292 = 2011-Tr0L-105-sc-oc )(Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited V. Union of India and others) is concerned about the claim made under the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the issue raised was as to whether interest therein under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act was to be paid from the date of expiry of three months from the date of the refund order made. The Apex Court, after referring to Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, pointed out that Section 11BB comes into play only after the order for refund was made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. If the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application submitted as per Section 11B (1), then the applicant would be entitled to interest on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application. Referring to Explanation under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, which is similar to the deeming fiction under Section 27A of the Customs Act, the Apex Court pointed out that if the order of refund is made by an appellate authority or the Court, then for the purpose of Section 11B, the order made by such higher appellate authority or by the court shall be deemed to be an order made under Section 11B (2) of the Central Excise Act. Thus, interest under Section 11BB was payable on the expiry of the period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund on the amount claimed thus remaining unpaid. The Apex Court pointed out It Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11-BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11-B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11-BB of the Act becomes payable."
Thus, the Apex Court held that the liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act commenced from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B (1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. The decision of the Apex Court on Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act has relevance to Section 27A , which is in pani materia with Section 11BB of Central Excise Act. As pointed out by the Apex Court, the Explanation fictionally treating the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or Tribunal as that of the original Authority under Section 27(2) has relevance for the purpose of grant of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act. Therefore, the liability of the Revenue to pay interest would arise immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application till the date of refund of such amount.
As far as the present case is concerned, when the claim of the assessees could validly be made only on the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessees would be entitled to interest only after the period of expiry of three months from the date of the application till the date of refund of such duty.
As far as the claim of the assessee based on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj) ( J.K.Cement Works V. Asstt . Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) is concerned, we do not find that the decision would be of any assistance considering the difference in language between the Central Excise Act (Section 11B ) and the Customs Act (Section 27). Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants placed heavy reliance on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to read the 'relevant date', as defined therein, into the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. We do not find any justification to bring in the provisions or the concepts therein into the Customs enactment, which is clear in its import.
Leaving that aside, when we look at the reasoning of the Rajasthan High Court, which was later on affirmed by the Apex Court, we find therein that the Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeal, treating the assessee as a new industrial undertaking entitled to rebate at Rs.50 /- per metric ton on full rate of duty; that the assessee made an application on 15.02.1992 for refund of the duty paid on the clearance of its product claiming entitlement to a rebate; the application was originally rejected by the Excise Commissioner by not accepting the claim of the assessee to be a new industrial undertaking. However, in the meantime, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken on appeal by the Revenue before the CEGAT , which upheld the claim of the assessee as a new industrial undertaking. In spite of the order dated 15.03.1996, accepted by the Revenue, there was no refund made. Instead, a show cause notice was issued to transfer the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The direction to deposit the duty paid by the assessee to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund was subjected to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter before the Tribunal, which upheld the claim of the assessee for refund. Except for the principal amount, no interest was paid by the Revenue . This was challenged before the High Court by way of writ petitions. Pointing out that the assessee was entitled to refund pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the Rajasthan High Court considered the claim of the assessee for refund prior to the expiry of three months from the date of the order dated 15.12.2002. In considering this, the Rajasthan High Court pointed out that reading Section 11BB with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the payment of interest could only be treated as one linked to the application required to be made under Section 11B and not to the order under Section 11B (2) of the Central Excise Act. The Rajasthan High Court observed that where any person claims refund, he has to make application as per Section 11B (1) of the Central Excise Act before the time limit stated therein from the relevant date. Taking note of the definition 'relevant date' under Explanation B( f), the High Court held that the date of payment of duty and not the date of determination about excess payment of duty would be the criteria for making an application under Section 11B (1). The Rajasthan High Court held:
"36. However, the payment of interest was linked not to the order under Section 11B, but with the application required to be made under Section I1B (I). As discussed above every person who claims a refund is first required to make an application under Section I1B before time limit stated therein from the relevant date. The relevant date defined under Explanation B( f), applicable to present case, is the date of payment of Duty and not the date of determination about excess payment of Duty. Until substituted vide Finance Act, 2000, any claimant, to refund was required to make an application before expiry of six months from the relevant date, which in the case of the petitioners, who did not fall within Clause (a)(e) of Explanation B to Section IIB was the date of payment of Duty. The period for making such applications since Finance Act, 2000 has been enhanced to one year.
37. Interest has been made payable with effect from the expiry of three months from the date of application made under Section 113(1), in case where refund is required to be paid to such applicant as per orders passed under Section 11B. The making of application is not linked with adjudication about excess payment but is linked with payment of Duty."
Thus on the provision available, the Rajasthan High Court observed that "notwithstanding the order under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 has been passed by CEGAT in appeal only on 15- 12-2002, but as the application to claim refund has been filed much earlier before the date when it was required to be filed and the amount having not been made within three months from the date of application, the applicant became entitled to interest with effect from the such date on principal amount to be refunded to him ultimately pursuant to an order made Under Section 11B at the rate notified by the Board from time to time, with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of application until date of payment of arrears of amount of excess Duty to Consumer Welfare Fund." Thus, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition directing the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act with effect from the expiry of three months from the date when 11BB of the Central Excise Act came into force, i.e., 26.5.1995 until the date of actual payment.
This judgment was affirmed by the Apex Court in the decision given dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2131 of 2008 dated 06.08.2009 in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 2008 (229) ELT 205 ( U.P . Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. Vs. U.O.I .) .
A reading of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj) ( J.K.Cement Works V. Asstt . Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) , as confirmed by the Apex Court, has to be seen in the context of the definition 'relevant date' given under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Thus, even going by the above decision and the provision in Section 27A which is in pan i materia with Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that the payment of interest can start only on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application and in this case, contrary to the assertion of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, the refund claim could lawfully be granted only after the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal and not for the period prior to that date, i.e., from the date when the Collector of Customs (Appeals) passed an order in favour of the assessees . In otherwords , the assessees could validly lay their claim, rightly so in this case, only after the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal and not prior to that date. Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants are entitled to claim interest prior to that date, i.e ,. they would be entitled to claim interest from the time when the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had allowed the appeals. Consequently, rejecting the above appeals, we hold that going by the provisions available under Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, the claim of the assessees for interest arise only on the dismissal of the appeals before the Tribunal, wherein the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) got confirmed and if the claim of the assessees for refund is not disposed of within the time specified under Section 27 of the Customs Act, i.e , within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application, then as per Section 27A of the Customs Act, the assessees would be entitled to claim interest on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application till the refund of such duty.
We may point out herein that only for the purpose of recovery, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, there is a definition of expression 'relevant date'. Thus, in the absence of any such definition of expression 'relevant date' under Section 27 of the Customs Act, as is found in the Central Excise enactment, we do not find that the assessees could draw much assistance from the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj) ( J.K.Cement Works V. Asstt . Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs) . Consequently, the above appeals are dismissed. We, however, make it clear that there is no dispute by the assessees as regards the date of receipt of application seeking refund. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to again order remand for working out the date from which the interest has to be granted. No costs.

Decision:-Appeals Dismissed

Comment:- The gist of this case is that section 27A clearly states that interest is payable on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application to the date of refund of such duty and on no account they would be entitled to interest on the amount paid under protest from the date of payment. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2468

Post a Comment

Query