The claim for refund falls under the existing law, i.e., the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not the provisions of the CGST Act. The court also relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. CIT, Pune, to determine the entitlement to interest on delayed refund.

ORDER

Pankaj Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order passed by Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the respondent has been held to be entitled for interest of refund from the date of deposit and the order whereby the application for rectification of mistake filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The respondent/Assessee having its registered office at Sonepat had applied for central excise duty along with interest before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Panipat. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Panipat vide order dated 21st June, 2017 allowed and sanctioned refund of Rs.54.00 lacs to the Assessee however claim w.r.t. interest was rejected.

3. The respondent/Assessee challenged the said order qua rejection of interest in appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Panchkula which was also dismissed vide order dated 18th January, 2018. The Assessee took the matter in appeal before CESTAT, Chandigarh. CESTAT vide order dated 7th January, 2020 held the Assessee entitled for interest on delayed refund from the date of deposit till its realization thereof. The Assessee approached the authorities of Panipat Division for refund on 24th February, 2020. While the application of the Assessee was pending before the Authorities at Panipat Division, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Panchkula filed rectification of mistakes application before the CESTAT. The said application has also now been dismissed by the CESTAT vide order dated 30th December, 2021. Consequently, the Revenue has come in appeal against the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal.

5. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue has primarily raised question w.r.t. the change in jurisdiction of the Authorities after the coming of new CGST regime. He claims that w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act1) has come into force. Keeping in view that the new tax regime has come into force, the erstwhile Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates were re-organised into Central Goods and Services Tax (Central Tax) Commissionerates w.e.f. 22nd June, 2017. The territorial jurisdiction of such Central Tax Commissionerates notified by the Government vide Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax dated 19th June, 2017 and brought into force w.e.f. 22nd June, 2017. The erstwhile Central Excise Commissionerates of Gurgaon-I, Gurgaon-II, Rohtak, Sonipat (Delhi-Ill), Panchkula, Faridabad-I and Faridabad-II, which earlier were under Delhi Central Excise Zone, were now brought under a newly created Chief Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Zone, Panchkula and reorganised into Gurugram, Rohtak, Panchkula and Faridabad Central Tax Commissionerates. The Central Excise Commissionerate of Sonepat (Delhi-Ill) was dissolved and the districts of Panipat and Sonepat in the State of Haryana that comprised it were merged with Panchkula and Rohtak Commissionerate respectively. At the same time, to discharge the functions under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the legacy matters under the Finance Act, 1994, Central Excise Officers were appointed vide Notification No. 12/2017-Central Excise (NT) dated 9th June, 2017, and their territorial jurisdiction was notified under the Notification No. 13/2017 dated 9th June, 2017. These two notifications were also brought into force w.e.f. 22nd June, 2017. For the administrative convenience, the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Tax and the Central Excise Officers has been kept identical. Thus, w.e.f. 22nd June, 2017, the Central Excise Division Panipat, which was earlier under the now dissolved Sonepat (Delhi III) Commissionerate, came under Panchkula Central Excise Commissionerate. Division Sonepat was brought within the jurisdiction of Rohtak Commissionerate. Thus, he claims that the respondent/Assessee impleaded wrong authorities for claim of refund and interest.

6. Secondly, th