AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund claim filed by the appellant has been rejected under Rule 5 of the Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 holding that the same is not entitled to the appellant.
The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of excisable goods and availing cenvat credit thereon. On 26.10.2013, the
appellant surrendered their Central Excise Registration. As there was some cenvat credit lying unutilized in their cenvat credit account, the appellant
filed refund claim of cenvat credit remained unutilized in their cenvat credit account on 17.06.2014. The same was rejected by the adjudicating
authority after issuing show cause notice to the appellant on the ground that neither the refund claim is covered under Section 11B of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 nor under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who also
rejected the same; therefore, the appellant is before me.
3.1 The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue, whether the appellant is entitled to refund of cenvat credit lying unutilized in their cenvat
credit account on surrender of their Central Excise Registration can be refunded, has been decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case
of M/s Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Ind. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Gurgaon vide Final Order No. 61626/2018 dt. 15.03.2018. The said order has been
followed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ranjeev Steels Pvt Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana vide Final Order No. 60452/2019 dt. 01.05.2019;
therefore, they are entitled for refund claim.
3.2 He further submits that the appellant is entitled for interest on the amount of refund not sanctioned till date after three months from the date of
filing of refund claim till its realization as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. U.O.I. â€" 2011 (273)
ELT 3 (SC).
3.3 He also relied on the following decision in support of his contention:
(a) Rama Industries Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh â€" 2009-TIOL100-HC-P&H-CX - C.E.A. No. 15 of 2009 dated 10.02.2009 (P&H)
(b) M/s Welcure Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. CCE, Jaipur â€" 2018 (15) CGST 257 (Raj)
(c) CCE, Nasik vs. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd â€" 2010 (256) ELT 523 (Bom) â€" as upheld by Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (326) ELT
A86 (SC)
On the other hand, the ld. A.R. opposes the contention of the ld. Counsel. He filed written submissions and requested that the same may be taken
on record as part of the order. Therefore, the written submissions filed by the ld. A.R. are taken on record as under:
“The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA, 1985 and availing Cenvat credit under Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 (‘CCR’). They surrendered their Central Excise registration certificate on 26.10.2013. On 17.06.2014, they filed refund
claim for the unutilised balance of Cenvat credit which was rejected by the adjudicating authority, after having issued a show cause notice on 12.09.14
seeking to deny the same on the grounds that the same was neither covered under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944(Act) nor under Rule 5
of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004(CCR). Aggrieved the Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected vide the impugned
order.
Aggrieved the Appellant has filed the subject appeal on the grounds mentioned below:
Ground no. 1: That Commissioner (Appeals)’s finding that refund of central excise duty could only be claimed under the authority of law was
incorrect. That the ratio of case law of Kusum Products Ltd v/s UOI- 2003 (157) ELT 258 (Cal )was not applicable to the subject case as the former
involved claim of refund on the ground of rescinding of a Notification which allowed credit on inputs used in manufacture of Vegetable ghee.
REBUTTAL: The Commissioner (Appeals) had noted that Rule 5 of CCR was meant for offloading or zero rating the exports from the burden of
input stage duty and did not have even a perfunctory application for goods cleared for home consumption and the policy of the government for exports
could not be arbitrarily and capriciously extrapolated for goods cleared for home consumption. The case law of Kusum Products (supra) was quoted
in the impugned order to bring home the point that judicial authorities could not compel to formulate a policy decision to suit the purpose of a particular
trader or manufacturer. It was the Government who was to provide different mode, not by intervention of the Court, but of its own accord. Since the
Government had not provided the mode of refund of unutilized credit in case of closure of unit, the same would lapse.
Ground no. 2 : Ratio of the case law of Nahar Industries Ltd v/s UOI â€" 2009 (235) ELT 22 (P&H) was not applicable to the present case as it dealt
with simultaneous applicability of Notfn. nos. 29/2003-CE and 30/2003-CE, not refund of Cenvat credit lying unutilized on closure of factory.
REBUTTAL: Ratio of Nahar Industries Ltd (supra) was applicable to the present case inasmuch as encashment of gratuitous payment of duty
through Cenvat credit was disallowed, which the Appellant has sought by way of refund of unutilized accumulated Cenvat credit.
Ground no. 3 : That the case law of UOI v/s Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt Ltd â€" 2008 (10) STR (101), which had not been considered holding that
they had shut down operations, whereas the said case law involved admissibility of Cenvat credit on strength of photocopies of invoices, was
applicable to the facts of the case, as both units had surrendered their registration.
REBUTTAL: The ratio of Slovak India is not applicable to the subject case in view of the fact that the said case law had been distinguished in Steel
Strips v/s CCE, Ludhiana â€" 2011 (269) ELT 257 (Tri-LB) wherein it had been held that refund of unutilized Cenvat credit lying in the books of a
company which had shut its operations, was not admissible as there was no express provision for the same. Further, the Larger Bench of Bombay
High Court in the case of Gauri Plasticulture Pvt Ltd v/s CCE, Indore - 2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 224 (Bom w)hile answering the reference arising out of a
Division Bench differing with another Division Bench’s view of the said High Court taken in the case of CCE v/s Jain Vanguard Polybutylene
Ltd. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 523 (Bom.), held that:
- cash refund was not permissible in terms of clause (c) to the proviso to section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where an assessee was
unable to utilize credit on inputs.
- by exercising power under Section 11B of the said Act of 1944, a refund of unutilized amount of Cenvat Credit on account of the closure of
manufacturing activities could not be granted.
- what is observed in the order dated 25th January, 2007 passed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 467 of 2007
(Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.) could not be read as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
A Division Bench in the case of Phoenix Inds Ltd v/s CCE, Raigad - 2015 (330) E.L.T. 303 (Tri. â€" Mumbai) after distinguishing the case laws of
Slovak India (supra) and CCE v. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. â€" 2010 (256) E.L.T. 523 (Bom.), referring to Rama Industries Limited v.
Commissioner â€" 2009-TIOL-100-HC-P&H-CX and relying upon Steel Strips (Supra) held that refund of unutilized Cenvat balance was not
permissible on closure of factory and Rule 5 of CCR had to be read as whole and not in parts.
Also, a Division Bench in the case of Saera Electric Auto Pvt. Ltd. V/S CCE & ST, Gurgaon-I â€" 2020 (372) ELT 452 (TriChd), after considering
the judgment of Slovak India, had distinguished it and held that even if the litigant seeks relief under Rule 5 of CCR, the same would not be admissible
post 01.04.2012 when the same was substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and the revised statute did not include any reference to “any other reasonâ€.
This is without prejudice to the fact that even otherwise Rule 5 was relevant only for refunds pertaining to exports and not in case of closure of a
factory.
Ground no. 4 : Decision in Steel Strips v/s CCE, Ludhiana â€" 2011 (269) ELT 257 (Tri-LB) has been overturned in Srinivasa Hair Industries v/s
CCE, Chennai-II â€" 2016-TOIL1203-CESTAT-MAD.
REBUTTAL: Ratio of Steel Strips (supra) is applicable to the present case inasmuch as the same has been rendered by a Larger Bench and even
though one of the members of the said Bench, sitting singly, has subsequently passed a contrary order in Srinivasa Hair (supra), the latter order has
been passed without taking into consideration the former. Therefore, the former will have more persuasive value vis-Ã vis the latter. Further, in
Srinivasa Hair the hon’ble Tribunal had accepted that “Revenue is correct in its proposition that Rule 5 only takes care of the cases where
unutilized input credit pertains to manufacture of exportable goods or intermediate goods cleared for export. There is no rule at all to entertain refund
of the unutilized CENVAT credit in respect of use of the input in the manufacture for domestic clearancesâ€, however it then proceeded to decide the
matter going beyond the express provisions of the Statute and allowing the benefit to the litigant relying on Slovak India (supra). It is pertinent to note
that the Larger Bench in Steel Strips (supra) and Gauri Plasticulture (supra) had distinguished Slovak India.
Further, in the case of Modipon Ltd v/s CCE, Ghaziabad - 2017 (49) S.T.R. 205 (Tri. â€" Del) a Division Bench held that there was no provision of
cash refund of accumulated credit due to stoppage of production under Section 11B ibid which was applicable only to duty paid on goods either
through cash or through Cenvat credit. It also noted that in case of closure of factory, unutilized credit would lapse unless production resumed by
assessee or by another, if said factory was sold or hired out. Lastly it was observed that other than Rule 5 of CCR, there was no provision under law
for cash refund of accumulated credit which was in turn subject to condition that accumulated Cenvat credit had to be in respect of inputs used in
manufacture of export goods or assessee not in position to utilize said accumulated credit for payment of duty on finished goods cleared for home
consumption or for export.
A Division Bench in the case of CCE C & ST, Tirupati V/S Rani Plastic Pipe Industries - 2020 (6) TMI 356 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD placing
reliance on Gauri Plasticulture, Phoenix Inds and distinguishing Slovak India held that no refund can be sanctioned under Section 11B if the assessee is
unable to utilise cenvat credit on account of closure of the manufacturing activities. Further relying on That in the absence of a specific provision
allowing refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit, nothing can be read into the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR of Section 11B of the Act. The law has been
laid down by the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company & Other - 2018 (361) ELT 577
(SC) and it was held that the fiscal laws must be interpreted as they are, without any intendment, regardless of the consequences. As per the ratio of
this judgment also refund couldn’t be sanctioned against the explicit provisions.
A situation closely related to the subject case is dealt with under Rule 11(2) of CCR dealing with cases where an assessee opts to avail of exemption
from the whole of the duty of excise leviable on goods manufactured by him under a notification based on the value or quantity of clearances in a
financial year, wherein it has been provided that an assessee who has been taking CENVAT credit on inputs or input services before such option is
exercised, shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit, if any, allowed to him in respect of inputs lying in stock or in process
or contained in final products lying in stock on the date when such option is exercised and after deducting the said amount from the balance, if any,
lying in his credit, the balance, if any, still remaining shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisable goods,
whether cleared for home consumption or for export. The clause of lapsing of credit in the said sub-rule clearly reflects the transitory nature of the
permissibility of Cenvat credit and its express admissibility only for discharge of duty on finished products and if the same is not opted for, the said
benefit lapses.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY APPELLANT ON 08.12.2020
Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Inds Ltd v/s CCE, Gurugram â€" FO no. 61626/2018 â€" issued by placing reliance on Slovak India which has been
rebutted in previous paragraphs
Ranjeev Steels Pvt Ltd v/s CCE, Ludhiana â€" FO no. 60452/2019 â€" based on Shree Krishna (supra)
New Plea : Entitled to interest on the amount of the refund after 3 months from the date of filing the claim
REBUTTAL: The Appellant had not raised this plea either at the post show cause notice adjudication stage, while filing appeal before Commissioner
(Appeals) or at the time of filing the subject appeal. It is only while filing the subject written submissions that they have raised this new issue for the
first time. Various appellate fora have consistently held that a new issue cannot be raised at appellate stage if it has not been raised at the preliminary
litigation stage. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:
- CCE, Mumbai-V v/s Sandeep Enterprises - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 65 (Tri. - Mumbai)
- DLF Ltd v/s CC, Kandla - 2014 (302) E.L.T. 303 (Tri. â€" Ahmd)
- Chennai Port Trust v/s CST, Chennai - 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 394 (Tri. â€" Chennai)
- BPCL v/s CC, Pune - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1422 (Tri. â€" Mumbai)
- R A Castings Pvt Ltd v/s CCE, Meerut - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 433 (Tri â€" Del)
Heard both the sides on length.
The issue arises from the arguments advanced before me is that whether the appellant is entitled to claim refund of cenvat credit lying unutilized in
their cenvat credit account at the time of surrender of their registration under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not?
7.1 The ld. A.R. heavily relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Saera Electric Auto Pvt Ltd vs. CCE & ST- Gurgaon-I â€" 2020 (372)
ELT 452 (Tri. Chd.). In the said case, as the appellant’s application was not under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, this Tribunal
came to the conclusion that cash refund of cenvat credit lying unutilized at the time of surrender of the registration cannot be admitted. Admittedly, in
the case in hand, the refund claim has been rejected under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the said decision is of no help of the ld.
A.R.
7.2 The ld. A.R. further submitted that as the decisions earlier relied upon by this Tribunal in the cases of M/s Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Ind. Ltd.
(supra) and Rama Industries Ltd (supra) pertain to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules prior to 01.04.2012. In such a situation, it would be appropriated
to see the Rule 5 prior to 01.04.2012 and Rule 5 after 01.04.2012. For better appropriation, Rule 5 prior and after 01.04.2012 is extracted as under:
“Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prior to 01.04.2012
Rule 5. Refund of CENVAT credit:- Where any input or input service is used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared for export
under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used in the intermediate product cleared for export, or used in providing output
service which is exported, the CENVAT credit in respect of the input or input service so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the
manufacturer or provider of output service towards payment of,
(i) duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty; or
(ii) service tax on output service,
and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall be allowed refund of
such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification:
Provided that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback allowed under the
Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims rebate of duty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in respect of such
duty; or claims rebate of service tax under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 in respect of such tax.
Provided further that no credit of the additional duty leviable under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act shall be utilised for
payment of service tax on any output service.
Explanation: For the purposes of this rule, the words ""output service which is exported"" means the output service exported in accordance
with the Export of Services Rules, 2005.
Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 after 01.04.2012
Rule 5 Refund of CENVAT Credit.
(1) A manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of
undertaking, or a service provider who provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, shall be allowed
refund of CENVAT credit as determined by the following formula subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be
specified by the Board by notification in the Official Gazette: specified in sub-rule.
(Export Turnover of goods + Export Turnover or services)
Refund amount = _________________ x Net CENVAT Credit Total Turnover
Where,-
(A) “Refund amount†means the maximum refund that is admissible;
(B) “Net CENVAT credit†means total CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services by the manufacturer or the output service
provider reduced by the amount reversed in terms of sub- rule (5C) of rule 3, during the relevant period;
(C) “Export turnover of goods†means the value of final products and intermediate products cleared during the relevant period and
exported without payment of Central Excise duty under bond or letter of undertaking;
(D) “Export turnover of services†means the value of the export service calculated in the following manner, namely:- Export turnover of
services = payments received during the relevant period for export services + export services whose provision has been completed for
which payment had been received in advance in any period prior to the relevant period â€" advances received for export services for
which the provision of service has not been completed during the relevant period;
(E) “Total turnover†means sum total of the value ofâ€
(a) all excisable goods cleared during the relevant period including exempted goods, dutiable goods and excisable goods exported;
(b) export turnover of services determined in terms of clause (D) of subrule (1) above and the value of all other services, during the relevant
period; and
(c) all inputs removed as such under sub-rule (5) of rule 3 against an invoice, during the period for which the claim is filed.
(2) This rule shall apply to exports made on or after the 1st April,2012:
Provided that the refund may be claimed under this rule, as existing, prior to the commencement of the CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment)
Rules, 2012, within a period of one year from such commencement:
Provided further that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback allowed
under the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims rebate of duty under the Central Excise
Rules, 2002, in respect of such duty; or claims rebate of service tax under the [Service Tax Rules, 1994] in respect of such tax.
Explanation 1- For the purposes of this rule,-
(1) “export service†means a service which is provided as per rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules,1994;
(2) “relevant period†means the period for which the claim
Explanation 2 â€" For the purposes of this rule, the value of services, shall be determined in the same manner as the value for the purposes
of subrule (3) and (3A) of rule 6 is determined.â€
On going through the Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prior and after 01.04.2012, there is no material change in the rule. In fact, Rule 5 after
01.04.2012 only provides a formula for allowance of refund in case of export of output service, otherwise whole of the Rule 5 deals with the situation
refund of cenvat credit lying unutilized in cenvat credit account.
7.3 The ld. A.R. also heavily relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company & Other - 2018 (361)
ELT 577 (SC) to say that there is an ambiguity of law then it should be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. Admittedly, when there is an ambiguity
in interpretation of law, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the Revenue, but the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd
(supra) and the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Rama Industries Ltd (supra) have clarified the law and taken a view;
therefore, the same are binding on this Tribunal. Therefore, the reliance of the ld. A.R. in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company & Other (supra) is of
no help.
8.1 The ld. A.R. further heavily relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Phoenix Inds Ltd v/s CCE, Raigad - 2015 (330) E.L.T. 303 (Tri.
â€" Mumbai) to say that in the said decision, this Tribunal after considering the decision of Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd (supra) and Slovak India
Trading Co. Pvt Ltd (supra) has held that the appellant is not entitled to refund claim of cenvat credit lying unutilized at the time of closer of the
factory.
8.2 I have gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Ind. Ltd. (supra), wherein this Tribunal has relied
upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which is a Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Rama Industries Ltd (supra)
wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. The matter is covered
against the revenue by the Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co.
Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (2001) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.), wherein it has been held that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (for brevity, „the Rules‟) in
terms does not prohibit refund in cash of Cenvat credit. On a further appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench to the
Supreme Court, Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by holding that the revenue did not file any appeal against many such orders
passed by Tribunals at Delhi and Mumbai. The Tribunal at Delhi has passed one such order in the case of Eicher Tractors v. CCE,
Hyderabad, 2002 (147) E.L.T. 457 (Tri.- Del.), whereas the Tribunal at Mumbai had passed three such orders, namely, Shree Prakash
Textiles (Guj.) Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, 2004 (169) E.L.T. 162 (Tri.-Mumbai); CCE, Ahmedabad v. Babu Textile Industries, 2003 (158)
E.L.T. 215 (Tri.-Mumbai); and CCE, Ahmedabad v. Arcoy Industries, 2004 (170) E.L.T. 507 (Tri.- Mumbai). The Tribunals in all the
aforementioned cases have held that the assessee is entitled to refund in cash of the amount deposited if the assessee has gone out of the
Modvat Scheme or his unit is closed. The Supreme Court has considered all the aforementioned decisions. Before the Supreme Court it was
conceded by the revenue that no appeal had been filed against the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Division Bench of
Karnataka High Court was upheld. In view of the above, both the questions of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves
to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.â€
This Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Krishna Paper Mills & Ind. Ltd. (supra) has observed that although this Tribunal has denied refund claim in the
case of Phoenix Inds Ltd (supra) but the Regional Bench at Chandigarh is bound by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana;
therefore, relying on the decision of Rama Industries Ltd (supra), I hold that the appellant is entitled for refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit lying in
their cenvat credit account at the time of surrender of the registration under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The another issue arises from the arguments advanced before me is that whether the appellant is entitled to claim interest on delayed refund after
three months of filing of the refund claim or not?
10.1 The contention of the ld. A.R. is that the appellant has not claimed the interest before the authorities below and it is a new issue, the same cannot
be raised at the appellate stage. To support this, he relied on the various decisions as under:
10.2 In the case of Sandeep Enterprises (supra), this Tribunal has held that whether the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture
or not, is a legal issue which can be raised at present stage. Therefore, the said decision is in favour of the assessee. In the case in hand, the issue of
interest on delayed refund is also a legal issue and can be raised at any stage. Therefore, the said decision is of no help to the ld. A.R.
10.3 Further, in the case of DLF Ltd (supra), the appellant has raised alternate plea, which is not in the case in hand.
10.4 Further, in the case of Chennai Port Trust (supra), this Tribunal has held that the new grounds raised by the appellants are in nature of the new
case put forward by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. Therefore, it was held by this Tribunal that such ground cannot be forwarded
at appellate stage.
10.5 Further, in the case of BPCL (supra), this Tribunal has held that “we find that this being a question in law and the appellant have in the right to
raise the issue at this level. However for the proper appropriation of facts and computation of refund due to the appellant, the matter needs to go to
the original authority.†So this Tribunal has held that being a legal issue can be raised at any stage.
10.6 Further, in the case of R A Castings Pvt Ltd (supra), this Tribunal was dealing with the issue of imposition of penalty whereas the appellant has
raised the issue before this Tribunal first time about duty liability which creates a new case of the assessee; therefore, this Tribunal held that the new
issue can be raised at this stage.
In the case in hand, the claim of interest by the appellant during the course of arguments is a consequential relief, as it has been held that the
appellant is entitled for refund, then they are entitled for interest also after three months of filing of the refund claim. It is a fact on record that at the
time of filing of refund claim before the adjudicating authority, the appellant was not aware that the adjudicating authority will not sanction their refund
claim within three months of the filing of the same. Therefore, claim of interest on delayed refund could not be raised before the adjudicating authority.
Admittedly, it has been held that it is a consequential relief, therefore, the appellant is entitled for interest after three months from the date of filing
refund claim in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (supra).
In view of the above discussions, I hold that the issue of claim of interest is a legal issue and can be raised at this stage, as the appellant has
succeed on merits that they are entitled for refund claim, therefore, the adjudicating authority shall entertain the claim of interest of the appellant after
three months from the date of filing refund claim in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd (supra).
In the above terms, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Order pronounced in the court on 18.12.2020)