TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest sanctioned to the appellant. 2. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sanctioned the interest from 11.3.2008 till the date of sanctioning refunds at the appropriate prescribed rate. 3. Shri M. Masilamani, Ld. Consultant, appearing for appellant submits that since the department had collected SED forcefully without any authority of law the appellant had to struggle for almost six years to get back the same. Hence they are rightly eligible for interest of ₹ 90,753/- along with interest on the same. The claim of interest was for the period from 05.02.2004 to 07.05.2010. But the appellate authority in his order sanctioned interest for the period 11.03.2008 to 25.08.2009 resulting in denial for a major ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty : Provided that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n stead of doing so, the LAA prolonged the matter by sending a deficiency memo on 9.6.2009 and with a personal hearing on 10.6.2009, which shows that the LAA never studied/verified the documents available with the refund sanction. However, the claim was sanctioned within two months from the above date. This is not at all acceptable and definitely there is a delay by the department from 11.3.2008 till the date of sanctioning refunds. In view of the above discussions and the facts stated therein, I allow the appeal partially by directing the department to pay interest from 11.3.2008 till the date of sanctioning of the refund amount at the appropriate prescribed rate. The appeal is disposed off as above . The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose further grant of interest under Section 27A of the Act. .... .... 16. In the decision reported in [2006] 280 ITR 643 - Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, filed as against the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 267 ITR 78, the Supreme Court considered the grant of interest for the delay in the payment of amount due to the assessee, which were held contrary to law. The Supreme Court held that Section 214(1) recognises in principle, the Government has the liability to pay interest on the amount of tax paid by an assessee in excess of the amount of assessed tax. Once the interest becomes due, it takes the same colour, as the excess amount of tax refundable to the assessee, on regular assessment. Consequently, as advance t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act. In considering the question of law raised by the Revenue, one has to go in accordance with the provisions of the customs Act and not by the general principles of law. 22. The reliance placed by the Appellate Tribunal to the decision reported in [2002] 245 ITR 606 CIT v. Narendra Doshi has no relevance for considering the claim of the assessee under the Customs Act. As regards the reliance placed on the decision reported in [1980] 123 ITR 429 (Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. C.I.T.), it relates to a claim on expenditure on the interest paid on belated payment on sugarcane cess; hence, the said decision does not help the assessee herein. 23. In the light of the discussion thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch had also considered and distinguished the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi [254 ITR 606 (SC)] before taking the above view. Therefore the view taken by the Tribunal s Division Bench relying on the apex court s judgment in Narendra Doshi s case cannot be considered as a precedent. The apex court s decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable to the instant case inasmuch as, in that case also, the court was dealing with certain issues arising under the Income Tax Act. The question to be decided by us is whether this Tribunal has power to award interest on delayed payment of interest to the assessee. The Tribunal s Larger Bench has already settled this issue by holding that this Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
