2023 (4) TMI 504 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Non-sanction of interest on delayed refund - rate of interest - HELD THAT:- This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in various cases and it has been consistently held that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment at the rate of 12% - Further, this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PANCHKULA VERSUS M/S RIBA TEXTILES LIMITED [2022 (3) TMI 693 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] after considering the various decisions held that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date of its refund and granted the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The arguments of the Revenue that M/S PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2017 (2) TMI 984 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has been challenged before the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court and the appeal has been admitted will not help the Revenue in any way as no stay has been granted against the said decision. Further, the main thrust of the argument of the Ld. DR that in the present case the duty has been deposited voluntarily and not under protest also does not have any force because consistently it has been held that any amount that is deposited during pendency of the adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under protest as held by the Madras High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE VERSUS M/S. PRICOL LTD., THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [2015 (3) TMI 735 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE 7-A, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW VERSUS M/S EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. [2017 (2) TMI 197 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].

Appeal allowed.