Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 149 (GAU)

ABDOS Lamitubes Private Limited v. Union of India

2018-01-29

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners have claimed for payment of interest amount on the delayed refund of excise duty to them. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of memo dated 22.4.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the manufacture of Laminated Plastic Tubes used for packaging of cosmetics, toothpaste etc. Petitioner No.2 is the Director of Petitioner No.1. Pursuant to Notification No.32/99-CE dated 8.7.99, the petitioners put forth their claim for the refund of central excise duty paid for the months of December, 2005; January, 2006 and February, 2006. The petitioners claimed refund of Rs.13,74,745/- for the month of January, 2006 and Rs.22,11,912/- for the month of February, 2006. But the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, vide order dated 31.3.2006, sanctioned refund of only Rs.1,51,376/- for the month of January,2006 and Rs.5,65,299/- for the month of February, 2006. The Deputy Commissioner also ordered for adjustment of excess refund of Rs.11,42,989/- allowed to the petitioners for the month of October, 2005. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) , Customs & Central Excise, Guwahati, who, vide order dated 12.10.2016 allowed the same and directed for the refund of entire amount claimed for. Dissatisfied with the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the Department preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, vide order dated 31.3.2008, remanded the matter to the original authority for its afresh decision. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, vide order dated 8.5.2009, sanctioned refund of Rs.51,89,277/- excise duty paid by the petitioners for the months of December, 2005; January,2006 and February, 2006. 4. The petitioners then claimed for interest on the delayed refund of excise duty as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, vide Memo dated 22.4.2013 informed the petitioners that there was no mention of interest in the aforesaid order dated 8.5.2009 and that the present refund does not fall within the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It is in this backdrop, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 5. But the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, vide Memo dated 22.4.2013 informed the petitioners that there was no mention of interest in the aforesaid order dated 8.5.2009 and that the present refund does not fall within the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It is in this backdrop, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 5. Admittedly, the question of payment of interest on the delayed refund of excise duty has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2013 (2) GLT 41 . The Division Bench has held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not exclude claim of refund made in terms of the Notification dated 8.7.1999 and therefore the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act on the excise duty refunded to them. This being the situation, we direct the Excise Officer to determine the interest amount payable to the petitioners for the relevant periods within 3 months from today. In the result, we also quash the memo dated 24.2.2013 of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise. 6. The petition is allowed with cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the petitioners.