AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this petition, the petitioners have claimed for payment of interest amount on the delayed refund of excise duty to them. The petitioners have
also prayed for quashing of memo dated 22.4.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise.
Petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the manufacture of Laminated Plastic Tubes used for packaging of cosmetics,
toothpaste etc. Petitioner No.2 is the Director of Petitioner No.1. Pursuant to Notification No.32/99-CE dated 8.7.99, the petitioners put forth
their claim for the refund of central excise duty paid for the months of December, 2005; January, 2006 and February, 2006. The petitioners
claimed refund of Rs.13,74,745/- for the month of January, 2006 and Rs.22,11,912/- for the month of February, 2006. But the Deputy
Commissioner, Central Excise, vide order dated 31.3.2006, sanctioned refund of only Rs.1,51,376/- for the month of January,2006 and
Rs.5,65,299/- for the month of February, 2006. The Deputy Commissioner also ordered for adjustment of excess refund of Rs.11,42,989/-
allowed to the petitioners for the month of October, 2005.
Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Guwahati,who, vide order
dated 12.10.2016 allowed the same and directed for the refund of entire amount claimed for. Dissatisfied with the order of Commissioner
(Appeals), the Department preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, vide order dated
31.3.2008, remanded the matter to the original authority for its afresh decision. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, vide
order dated 8.5.2009, sanctioned refund of Rs.51,89,277/- excise duty paid by the petitioners for the months of December,2005; January,2006
and February,2006.
The petitioners then claimed for interest on the delayed refund of excise duty as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
But the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, vide Memo dated 22.4.2013 informed the petitioners that there was no mention of interest in the
aforesaid order dated 8.5.2009 and that the present refund does not fall within the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It is in this
backdrop, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
Admittedly, the question of payment of interest on the delayed refund of excise duty has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court
in Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2013 (2) GLT 413. The Division Bench has held that Section 11B of the Central Excise
Act does not exclude claim of refund made in terms of the Notification dated 8.7.1999 and therefore the assessee is entitled to interest under
Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act on the excise duty refunded to them. This being the situation, we direct the Excise Officer to determine the
interest amount payable to the petitioners for the relevant periods within 3 months from today. In the result, we also quash the memo dated
24.2.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise. The petition is allowed with cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the petitioners.