Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2014-15/2236

Whether interest on delayed refund admissible after expiry of 3 months from the date of filing claim or order of appellate authority?
Case:- SURAJBHANSYNTHETICS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD-IV

Citation:- 2014(301) E.L.T. 386 (Tri. - Bang.)

Brieffacts:- Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed refund application for Rs. 3,44,972/- on the ground of opting out from the Cenvat Scheme to avail full exemption of duty on their products from August, 2004 vide Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9.7-2004 and paid Rs. 3,46,072/- vide TR.6 challans towards Cenvat credit lying in balance of account on inputs, processing of goods and finished goods lying on 20-8-2004 but claimed refund of Rs. 3,44,972/-. The said claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide C. No. V/54/18/29/ 2007-R, dated 9-4-2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in -Appeal No. 36/2009-(1-1.1V)C.E., dated 30-9-2009 allowed the appeal with consequential relief. However the Committee of Commissioners reviewed the order and filed an appeal along with stay application in this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 1156/2010; dated 7-9-2010 rejected the appeal filed by the Department. In view of the above, the appellant filed for refund of Rs. 3, 44,972/- which was sanctioned by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original No. 47/2001(R), dated 24-1-2011 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for interest on the refund amount of Rs. 3, 44,972/- from the date of filing of refund. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the appeal filed by the appellant came to the conclusion that appellant was eligible for refund after accounting 3 months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal dated 7-9.2010. The appellant is in appeal against this decision.

 

Appellant’sContention:- Nobody was present on behalf of the appellant and so the grounds of appeal were considered.
 
Respondent’scontention:- Respondent i.e. commissioner (Appeals) considering the appeal filed by the appellant contended that appellant was eligible for the refund after accounting 3 months from the date of receipt of the order of the tribunal dated-7-9-2010 and not from the date of filing the claim before the original authority i.e. 29-5-2007.
 
Reasoningof Judgment:- Tribunal finds that the Department has taken a view that appellant is eligible for refund from three months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal which attained finality as regards exemption as well as eligibility for refund. In such cases, it is settled law that the interest is payable from the date of filing the refund claim and not from the date of receipt of the final order of the Tribunal. In this case, the subject matter of the dispute itself was interest on the refund claim by the appellant after three months from the date of filing the refund claim. In such a situation, the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that three months has to be accounted from the date of receipt of the final order of the Tribunal taking a view that interest is admissible is not correct. Tribunal finds that in the case Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. 1101 & Ors. [2011-110L-105-SC-CX = 2011 (273) L.T. 3 (S.C.)], it has been held that liability of Revenue to pay interest under section 11BB from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B (1) of the Act. In this case, the refund claim was filed on 29-5-2007 before the original authority and therefore, the interest has to be paid calculating 3 months from that date.

Decision: - Appeal is allowed.
  
Comment:-The gist of this case is that when refund of duty is filed to the original authority and if the refund is delayed because of further appeal, in that case, the assessee is eligible for interest on delayed sanction of refund after expiry of three months from the date of filing the original refund claim to the original authority and not from the date of the receipt of the order of the tribunal which confirmed sanction of refund claim to the assessee.
 
Prepared By:- Priya Jain
 
 
 
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com