1. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders. As both the appeals are having common issue, therefore, both are decided by a common
order.
2. The facts in Appeal No. ST/60447/2020 are as follows:
The appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period 2006-09. The said refund claims were rejected by the
common order dt. 21.12.2009. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dt. 24.02.2010 remanded the
matter back to the adjudicating authority who again rejected the refund claims vide order dt. 14.06.2013. Thereafter, on 26.05.2014, the ld.
Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the refund claim and partly rejected the refund claim. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and
this Tribunal vide order dt. 05.10.2018 allowed the refund claim on merits but remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for calculation
and verification. The adjudicating authority vide order dt. 22.11.2019 partly allowed the refund claim and partly rejected, but on appeal by the
appellant, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt. 01.07.2020 allowed the refund claim to the appellant, but did not consider the claim of interest
raised by the appellant. Against the order of non-consideration of the issue of interest or rejection of payment of interest, the appellant is before this
Tribunal.
3. The facts in Appeal No. ST/60469/2020 are as follows:
The appellant filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period the period 2009-10. The said refund claim was
rejected vide order dt. 22.08.2013. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the refund claim vide order dt. 23.07.2014. Against the
said order, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dt. 27.07.2018 allowed the refund claim to the appellant.
To consequent to the order of this Tribunal, the adjudicating authority vide its order dt. 22.11.2019 partly allowed the refund claim, partly rejected. On
appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim vide order dt. 01.07.2020, but did not consider the claim of interest raised by the
appellant. Against the order of non-consideration of the issue of interest or rejection of the issue of interest, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
4. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that as the issue in both the appeals is common, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. CCE â€" 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), the appellants are entitled to claim the interest on
refunds after three months from the date of filing of the claim of refund if the same has not been sanctioned within the period, although the matter be
litigated at higher stage. Therefore, he submits that the appellant is entitled to claim the interest.
5. On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that as the authorities below have not considered the claim of interest of the appellants, therefore, the matter
be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to considered the claim of interest.
6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
7. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), wherein the Apex Court has cleared that if the
assessee filed the refund claim and the same is to be sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim and the same is not
sanctioned, then the Revenue has to pay the interest thereon on till its realization after three months from the date of filing of the refund claim although
there may be litigation in the matter. Admittedly, the appellants have filed the refund claims during the period 2006-09 and 2009-10 respectively and
the same have not sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the refund claim. In these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to
claim interests on delayed refunds after three months from the date of filing of the refund claim till its realization.
8. In these terms, I allow the claim of interest by the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
