Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. (2026) 40 Centax 208 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dipankar Datta & Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
- Shri Raghvendra P. Shankar, A.S.G., Avtar Singh Deol, Bhuvan Kapoor, Gaurav Arya & Ms Pallavi Mishra, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Nitum Jain, Shri Swastik Mishra & Ms Medha Sinha, Advocates & Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee had paid disputed excise duty and subsequently obtained an order from the tribunal directing refund of the same. It was noted that during the relevant period there was no provision for payment of interest on delayed refund, and a statutory provision in this regard was inserted later under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The principal refund amount was ultimately paid after a considerable delay, following which the issue regarding grant of interest and compensatory interest arose. The High Court examined the matter and sustained the award of interest as well as compensatory interest for the relevant period, and also upheld compensatory interest for the delay in refund. On special leave petition (SLP), the matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the judgment of the High Court was not to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case. It upheld the award of interest as well as compensatory interest for the relevant period. Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed in favour of assesse.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2026) 40 Centax 207 (Mad.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
