JAYANTA GLASS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute relates to the period for which the applicant is entitled to claim interest. According to the applicant, it is entitled to interest from 5 -2 -98 taking into consideration, its refund application filed on 5 -2 -98. The respondent on the other hand has submitted that relevant date is 6 -12 -2001, namely, the date of application for refund after the final order was passed by this Tribunal on 31 -10 -2001. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that his stand is supported by a decision bf the Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Coils (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata [2003 (153) E.L.T. 290 (Cal.) = 2002 (51) RLT 1011].

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the applicant had filed his refund application on 5 -2 -98 on the basis of Order -in -Original No. 23/CH 70 COMMR/CE/Calcutta -III/Adjn/97, dated 31 -10 -97. The above application was rejected as time -barred by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. Appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. Thereafter the party filed an appeal before this Trib. By order dated 31 -10 -2001, this Tribunal took the view that the refund application was filed in time and, therefore, it was not liable to be rejected. Pursuant thereto the refund of the amount deposited was made on 8 -4 -2003.

(3.) INTEREST is claimed by the applicant on the basis of the provisions contained under Section 11BB. The above Section provides that if any duty ordered to be refunded under Section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within 3 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 per cent) and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as fixed from time to time 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. Explanation to the above provision is relevant for the present case. The Explanation reads as follows : -