ACC LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company initially filed this petition assailing the impugned notice dtd. 3/9/2021 (Annexure P-1) with further prayer for refund of the claim to the petitioner alongwith interest.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties at the outset fairly submitted that vide Order-in-Original No.02/AC/REF/STN/2022-23 dtd. 5/8/2022, the office of Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Division, Satna directed sanction rebate claim of Rs.1,40,02,152.00. Thus, it is jointly contended by learned counsel for the parties that the only question deserves consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get interest on this refund.

(3.) Shri Devnath learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Akshay Sapre shown his interest only for getting interest on the said refund. By taking this court to Sec. 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944, (in short 'the Act'), which deals with 'interest on delayed refunds', it is contended that the plain language of Statute makes it clear that if any amount is directed to be refunded is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under Sub Sec. 1 of that Sec. , the applicant shall be paid interest at such rates fixed by the Statute. It is contended that the relevant application was filed by the petitioner way back on 3/9/2014 (Annexure P-2) whereas the respondents paid the refund only on 5/8/2022. Thus, the petitioner became entitled to get interest after three months from 3/9/2014. The respondents contested this claim mainly on the ground that after having passed the order of refund dtd. 5/8/2022, the competent authority has become functus of icio. Attention is drawn on Para-5.3 of the reply. In support of aforesaid claim of interest, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2011 (10) TMI 16- Supreme Court =2011 (10) SCC 292 (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others).