AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Order-in-Appeal No. 695 /CRM/CE/JDR/2019 dated July 23, 2019 has been assailed vide the impugned appeal before the Tribunal. Final arguments have been heard. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been allowed the refund of excess duty paid along with interest at the rate of 6% vide the impugned order under challenge. However, in terms of notification No. 67/2003, the appellant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 12%. Learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:
i) CCE, Hyderabad vs. I T C Ltd. [2005 (179) 15 (SC)];
ii) Govind Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad [2014 (35) STR 444 (All.)]; and
iii) Dinesh Tobacco Industries vs. Commissioner CGST, Jodhpur [2020 (371) ELT 303 (Tri-Del)]
Relying upon these decisions, learned Counsel has prayed that order under challenge be modified in terms of the rate of interest i.e. interest at the rate of 6% be substituted as interest at the rate of 12%. 2. To rebut these arguments, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that none of the case law as relied upon by the appellant is applicable to the present case because the Notification No. 67/2003 stands superseded by notification No. 24/2014 vide which the Government has specifically fixed the rate of interest at 6% per annum. Hence, there is no infirmity nor any illegality in the order under challenge. Therefore, appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
After hearing both the parties, I observe and held as follows: The appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Chewing tobacco and had filed two refund claims for the manufacture of March, 2015 and April, 2015. Both of his refund claims have been allowed along with interest at the rate of 6%. The appellants grievance is about the rate of interest that it may be fixed at the rate of 12%.
I have gone through three decisions as have been relied upon by the appellant passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court. But I am of the opinion that in view of the notification existing as on date i.e. No. 24/2014 vide which the Government has exercised its power even under Section 35FF of Central Excise Act for fixing the rate of interest that the said rate has specifically been fixed at the rate of 6% per annum. Further perusal of Notifications shows that Notification No. 17/2002 has been superceded by Notification No. 24/2014. Notification No. 64/2003 as has been relied upon by the Hon'ble Courts in the above said decision is the one which superceded non other than said Notification No. 17/2002. Hence none of the decisions as relied upon by appellant can apply. Three of the decision as relied upon are of the period prior to the Notification No. 24/2014. Keeping in view the same and the intent of the legislature under challenge 11BB of the Central Excise Act, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority. No interference is deemed required. Appeal accordingly, is hereby dismissed.