ORDER
T.V. Sairam, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd., against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had seen eye to eye with the Order-in-Original passed by the Dy. Commr., C. Ex. denying a refund claim of Rs. 2,65,700/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty-five thousand seven hundred only) made by the appellants under Sections 11AB and 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
2. The Id. Advocate informs that the Appellants had applied for the said refund in respect of the bank interest debited to their account by their Bankers for the period 22-3-1995 to 21-3-2003 against the Bank Guarantee furnished by them to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, pursuant to an order passed by the Hon’ble CEGAT (CESTAT) on 23-11-1994 against their stay application.
3. The contention of the Appellants is that they were deprived from utilisation of their legitimate amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) for approximately nine years (up to 2004), which was retained as the margin money by their bankers. Since they were required to pay bank interest of Rs. 2,65,7007- (Rupees two lakhs sixty-five thousand seven hundred only) against the margin money of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) on account of Bank Guarantee furnished for Rs. 10 Lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs), they say that they are entitled for the refund of the said amount, as the same stands settled in their favour by CEGAT. The argument advanced by the appellants is simple and direct. According to them, since the said CEGAT order dated 24-6-2003 grants consequential relief, the present refund claimed by them on account of bank charges paid by them to their bank also gets covered therein and as such the refund needs to be sanctioned.
4. The Id. SDR opines that the refund claim made by the Appellants deserves to be rejected as the same is not covered under provisions of Sections 11B and 11 BB of the C.E. Act, 1944.
5. I have examined the case records and heard both sides. Though it may appear that the expression “consequential relief” used in the Tribunals order has been stretched by the appellants a bit beyond its tether, nevertheless there is a point in their claim. To follow legal procedures and formalities the taxpayers have to incur a sum, which is often denied to them for want of provisions as in the present case. As we have to develop a world-class tax system in the coming years, it is my humble suggestion that the law makers devise certain mechanism to tackle such genuine grievances of the tax-payers.
6. While thinking global, one has to act local; the appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in court)