Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 520 - AT - Central ExciseInterest on demands made by the appellant during investigation and pursuant to the initial order of Departmental Adjudicating Authority, confirming the demand proposed in the impugned show cause notices - Section 11B of CEA 1944 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Adjudicating Authority below has though sanctioned the refund of the said deposited amount, however, while relying upon the section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has denied the entitlement for interest on the said deposit. It is observed that the issue has been dealt in detail by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX, NOIDA (VICE-VERSA) [2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD]. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] has dealt with the issue deciding the same in favour of the assessee holding the assessee entitled for the interest @12 % for the refund of the amount which were deposited not as the amount of duty. The issue is no more res integra that any deposits made if have not been confirmed as duty the time bar of Section 11B of Central Excise Act cannot be invoked. It stands clear that the amount in question was not the amount of duty after the Tribunal set aside the duty liability of the appellant. Hence, it is held that section 11 B is not applicable to such deposits. Commissioner (Appeals) is held to have wrongly invoked the said provisions. In terms of section 35 of Central Excise Act, the amount of refund being in the nature of deposit only appellant is held entitled for the interest on the said amount that too @ 12 % from the date of deposit till the date of realisation thereof. Appeal allowed.
|