2022-TIOL-1574-HC-KAR-CX
Altisource Business Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs DCCT
CX - s.11BB of CEA, 1944 - Interest - It is contended by the petitioner that in view of the inordinate delay and latches on the part of the respondent in not processing the refund claims of the petitioner within the prescribed period of three months from the date of receipt of the applications as contemplated under Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.08.2020 seeking payment of interest on the delayed refund by the respondent - This representation was met with a show cause notice and consequently the impugned order rejecting the claim for interest and against which the present petition - Respondent has rejected the claim for payment of interest put forth by the petitioner on the ground that though the petitioner had filed refund applications earlier, the same were defective on account of which the respondent called upon the petitioner to rectify the defects, produce documents and make submissions and accordingly, the subject refund orders having been passed within the prescribed period of three months from the date of the final submission made by the petitioner do not cast any liability upon the respondent to pay interest.
Held: Apex Court has [in the case of Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories - 2016-TIOL-21-SC-CX ] categorically held that it is obligatory on the part of the revenue to intimate the assessee to remove the deficiencies in the application within two days and in any event, if there are still deficiencies, it can proceed with the adjudication and reject the application for refund subject to the condition that, by no stretch of imagination, the adjudicatory process has to be completed within three months and cannot be carried on beyond the prescribed period of three months as contemplated under Section 11-BB of the said Act of 1944 - In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent did not pass the refund sanction order within the prescribed period of three months and the delay on the part of the respondent in not passing the refund sanction order cannot be attributed or attributable to the petitioner, particularly when the adjudicatory process had to be mandatorily completed within the period of three months - Merely because there were certain deficiencies/lacunae in the refund claim by the petitioner, the said circumstance cannot be relied upon nor made the basis by the respondent in order to contend that it was entitled to pass the refund sanction order beyond the prescribed statutory period of three months - Respondent completely misdirected itself in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the period of three months would start running from the date of the final submission made by the petitioner and not from the date of submission of the refund claim - Respondent is directed to pay/grant interest to the petitioner on the amounts already refunded in favour of the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of three months - Petition allowed: High Court [para 10, 11, 12]
- Petition allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1573-HC-MP-CX
ACC Ltd Vs UoI
CX - The language of Section 11BB is plain and unambiguous - It casts a duty on the respondents to pay the interest on delayed refunds, if refund is not made within three months from the date of receipt of application under Sub Section 1 of the relevant Section - As regards the objection by the counsel for Respondent Revenue that the adjudicating authority became functus officio and, therefore, question of payment of interest does not arise, when language of the Statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given effect to irrespective of consequences - Statute makes it obligatory for the respondents to pay the interest on delayed payment and, therefore, if respondents have chosen to undertake an exercise partially by only refunding the amount without interest, they cannot wriggle out from their statutory responsibility to pay the interest - The respondents shall now determine the amount of interest payable to the petitioner under Section 11BB of the Act and after calculating the amount of interest shall pay the same to the petitioner within eight weeks - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 10 to 12]
- Petition allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1572-HC-MUM-CUS
Lupin Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner states that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to Respondent No. 2- Directorate General of Foreign Trade to decide their representation dated 9 August 2021 - Counsel for the Respondents states that representation would be decided on its own merits as per law within a period of four weeks and the decision would be communicated to the Petitioner - It is open to the petitioner, if the decision is adverse, to take such steps as are permissible in law - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
|
