M/S Mercedes Benz Research And Development INDIA Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court allowed the petition. It directed the concerned respondent(s) to consider the petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed refund. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the concerned respondent(s) on January 19, 2026, to submit additional representations, applications, and documents supporting their claim. Following this, the respondents were directed to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders within four months from January 19, 2026, bearing in mind the judgments cited by the petitioner and in accordance with the law. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner's claim for interest on delayed refund had not been considered by the respondents even until the date of the order.

Facts

M/s. Mercedes Benz Research and Development India Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest on the delayed issuance of refund of CENVAT credit of service tax for the period of April 2008 to June 2017. The petitioner had submitted refund applications and representations, including one dated March 26, 2019, seeking this interest, but no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner argued that despite receiving the refund, interest on the delayed payment was not provided. The respondents stated that the petitioner's claim would be considered, and appropriate decisions would be taken in accordance with the law, suggesting the petitioner submit supporting documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is eligible for interest on the delayed issuance of refund of CENVAT credit of service tax for the period of April 2008 to June 2017, under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they are eligible for interest on the delayed refund of CENVAT credit of service tax. They relied on various judgments, including Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors., and others, to support their claim for interest on delayed refunds. They highlighted that despite representations, no action had been taken by the respondents. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents submitted that the petitioner's claim would be considered, and an appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with the law. They suggested that the petitioner should submit appropriate documents in support of their claim.