Page 164 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

386 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

[Order]. - M/s. Devendra Udyog, appellant herein was engaged in man-
ufacturing of S.S. Cold Rolled Patta with the help of cold rolling machines and
were availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and on capital goods. After
1-5-2006, appellant opted for payment of compound duty in respect of said Cold
Rolled Patta, in furtherance of Notification No. 34/2001, dated 28-6-2001. At the
time of such option a stock of inputs was lying with the appellant whereupon
they had availed total Cenvat credit of Rs. 7,33,739/-. However, with a view that
they were actually not required to pay this amount, the refund claim of said
amount was filed on 17-8-2006 which was rejected by Order-in-Original No.
472/2006, dated 16-11-2006. The appeal thereof was rejected by Commissioner
(Appeals) vide order No. 117/2007, dated 22-2-2007.
2. However, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/52085, dated 7-6-
2016 allowed the appeal of the present appellant. As a consequential relief there-
of, the refund was disbursed on 3-10-2010. However, no interest was paid there-
upon, hence, appellant filed the impugned refund claim for interest amount of
Rs. 8,86,870/- under Section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 on 19-4-2017 on
the ground that the refund was not sanctioned within three months from the
date of receipt of the application. The said refund was rejected initially vide Or-
der No. 2/2017, dated 17-7-2017. The appeal thereof was allowed, however, the
interest @ of 12% was denied. It was sanctioned only for 6%. Being aggrieved the
appellant is before this Tribunal.
3. I have heard Shri O.P. Aggarwal, Learned Counsel for the appellant
and Shri K. Poddar, Learned DR for the department.
Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon M/s. Govind Mills Ltd. v. Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 2014-TIOL-677-HC-ALL-CX = 2014
(35) S.T.R. 444 (All.) submitting that the interest at the rate of 12% has been al-
lowed by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in this case. It is further pointed out
that the said decision has been passed based upon the decision of Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd.
reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.) wherein while ordering interest at the rate
of 12% Supreme Court clarified that any judgment or decision of any High Court
taking contrary view declared to be no longer good law in view of Section 35F of
Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel has prayed to enhance the
rate of interest from 6% to 12 % and for the appeal to be accordingly, allowed.
Ld. Counsel also relied upon the F.O of this Tribunal bearing No. 51266/2019,
dated 4-9-2019 [2019 (371) E.L.T. 303 (Tri.-Del.)].
Per contra, Ld. D.R. has submitted that the rate of interest stands already
prescribed by the Department in furtherance of Notification No. 67/2003, dated
12-9-2003, as has been relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned
order. With respect to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that
the directions have been given qua the decision/judgment of the High Court.
Impressing upon that the Tribunal are strictly bound by the statute whereas the
High Court and Supreme Court has the inherent powers of making decisions, it
is submitted that the interest at the rate of 6% has rightly been fixed. Appeal is,
accordingly, prayed to be dismissed.
After hearing both the parties, perusing records and the order under
challenge, I observe and hold as follows :-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  164