Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in providing services to an overseas entity (Blackberry Singapore Pte. Ltd.), qualifying as export of services. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed refund claims for unutilised CENVAT credit for multiple periods between 2012–2014.

The refund claims were initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the services were rendered as an intermediary, making the place of provision of services in India. The rejection was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

Subsequently, the Petitioner succeeded before the CESTAT, which allowed the refund. The Revenue’s further appeal before the High Court was dismissed. Thereafter, the refund amount was sanctioned but interest under Section 11BB was denied, treating a later communication (dated 07.02.2023) as the relevant refund application date instead of the original applications filed in 2013–2014.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether interest under Section 11BB is payable from the date of original refund applications or from the date of subsequent communication requesting refund.
  2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating a later letter as the refund application for computing interest.
  3. Applicability of settled law regarding commencement of interest on delayed refunds. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The Petitioner contended that refund applications were duly filed in 2013 and 2014.
  • Interest under Section 11BB should be computed after expiry of three months from the date of original applications.
  • Reliance was placed on settled law that delay attributable to litigation does not shift the starting point for interest.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue argued that the refund claim was processed within three months from the Petitioner’s letter dated 07.02.2023.
  • It was contended that interest liability should arise only after three months from the date of such subsequent request or appellate order. 

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court held that the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in treating the letter dated 07.02.2023 as the refund application.
  • It reaffirmed that interest under Section 11BB becomes payable after three months from the date of original refund application, not from appellate orders or subsequent correspondence.
  • The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in:
    Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India
  • The Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to:
    • Recompute interest from the expiry of three months from the original application dates (2013–2014)
    • Process and grant the interest forthwith
  • The writ petition was allowed.

Important Clarification

  • Even if refund is granted after appellate proceedings, interest liability dates back to the original application, not the appellate decision.
  • Administrative delay or litigation does not extinguish statutory interest rights.
  • Subsequent reminders or letters cannot be treated as fresh refund applications.

 Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/VIB03082023CW93642023_160606.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.