TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UOI, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.), it was held that the amount paid as pre-deposit, for pursuing the appellate remedy or for any other reason mandated by law, cannot be treated as a tax as that is only a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy. The petitioners contention that they are entitled to interest from the date of the final order of the CESTAT, is justified and warranted. As to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court had quashed and set aside the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax and Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 6-8-2010 [2010 (257) E.L.T. 289 (Tri.-Del.)]. The CESTAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of the Central Excise, who had imposed penalty under Rule 209A read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty imposed was ₹ 3 crores each. The CESTAT had subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted w.e.f. 13-5-2016 (i.e. within 3 months from the date of receipt of the application). The adjudicating authority therefore, declined to grant any interest even while sanctioning the refund of ₹ 5 crores to the present petitioners. 3. The two-fold submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, that the amounts paid as pre-deposit (before CESTAT) and purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as a tax as that is only a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd., 1997 (94) E.L.T. A159 (S.C.). In Nestle India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, 2003 (154) E.L.T. 567 also, a similar view was adopted. The latest judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. W.S. Retail Services v. State of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of its prospective nature, the Court recollects that the provisions of law ought not to be read in a manner so as to invalidate them. In view of the interpretation preferred by the above judgment, the alleged unconstitutionality no longer subsists. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The respondents are her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
