The petitioner is entitled to statutory interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"(i) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents by themselves and/or their officers and/or subordinates to forthwith sanction and grant interest of Rs. 6,56,40,817 in respect of refund sanctioned and granted after the expiry of three months from the date of application Ref no:AAACL0140PEMO89_2014- 002_RF_RR (vide Annexure-B) dated 15/09/2014. i.e. from 15.12.2014 till the date of actual receipt the refund i.e. 09.04.2025 under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 .

(ii) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original No. 26/2024-25/ED-5 dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent No. 3 to the extent adverse to the Petitioner as it fails to grant the statutory interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the delayed sanction of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 .

(iii) for cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioner;

(iv) such other and further order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case."

2. Heard Sri.Prakash Chandra Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Kushalappa B.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Aravind V Chavan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have perused the material on record.

3. The issue in the lis revolves around a narrow compass, as projected before this Court. The petitioner is claiming interest on the refund that is ordered by respondent No.3. On 01.12.2024, a show cause notice is issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise proposing to reject the refund application of the petitioner, on the ground that AAFLs manufactured and cleared by them during the period December, 2013 to August, 2014 were correctly classified under CH 93059000 and the duty paid UNDER PROTEST is liable to be vacated. The petitioner was then issued a show cause notice demanding a huge sums and an order in Order in Original, comes to passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, dated 31.03.2015. Being aggrieved by the order in original, the petitioner files an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’). The Commissioner of Appeal dismisses the appeal. Aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate Tribunal in Central Excise Appeal No.20695/2022. On 24.10.2024, the Tribunal allows the appeal by remitting the matter back to the adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication. The third respondent sanctions refund to the petitioner but fails to grant statutory interest on delayed sanction of refund, which order of sanctioning refund as claimed was granted after three months of the application. It therefore, becomes appropriate to notice the order of the Tribunal. It reads as follows:

"This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.266/2022 dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Bangalore.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claim of Rs.10,60,03,044/- being the differential duty paid by them under protest during the period December 2013 to 31.08.2014 on the ground instead of discharging duty @ 6% under Classification No.9301 2000,