TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 5-3-2020 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.N. Gohil, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitled for the interest on refund from the date of deposit made during investigation and subsequently demand was dropped and refund arose. The lower authorities granted interest from the date of order by which the demand was set-aside. In the present appeal, the appellant have challenged that portion of the order to which the interest was not granted i.e. from date of deposit till the date of the order. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per the CESTAT bench Chandigarh judgment in the case of Riba Textiles Limited vs. CCE ST, Panchkula 2020 (2) TMI 602 CESTAT CHANDIGARH, interest is payable from the date of deposit of duty when it is paid during investigation. 3. Shri S.N. Gohil, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that against the same impugned order, Revenue had also filed appeal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by this Tribunal in appellant s demand case, Section 35FF was very much in existence. Therefore, any refund of pre-deposit shall be governed by Section 35FF during the relevant period. Section 35FF clearly stipulates that if the refund is not granted within three months from communication of the order by the Appellate Authority, unless the order is stayed by higher forum the Revenue is under obligation to pay the interest from three months of the communication of the order. Therefore, the date of filing refund application is not significant in the present case. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granting the refund of interest on refund already sanctioned. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 5. From the above order it can be seen that it was held that refund in case of pre-deposit governed by Section 35FF according to which the interest is payable from three months of the order by which the demand was set-aside. Therefore, there is no question of interest from the date of deposit. A similar issue has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Petronet LNG Limited (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rners of the Statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. If the proceedings are taken under the Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in the Act will prevail. It may, however, be open to the department to initiate proceedings in the Civil Court for recovery of the amount due to the department in case when such a remedy is open on the ground that the money received by the assessee was not in the nature of refund. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in a previous decision in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs but it was assailed before this Court. The appeal was withdrawn. This Court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. See the obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit provided under the statute, general law of limitation not available. The decisions where assessee has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Courts have applied the period of limitation of three years, the same is inapplicable to cases where the refund application has been moved before the Revenue authority. The decision in the case Escorts Limited v. UOI - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 211 (S.C.), the Hon ble Apex Court has held that application for refund is presented before the Customs authority under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, the said authority must necessarily operate within the four corners of the said Act and cannot have recourse to Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the delayed application rightly rejected as time barred. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Amines and Plasticizers Limited held that refund claims filed beyond the period prescribed under Customs Act, 1962, the High Court order directing the Revenue to ignore the period of limitation and dispose of the refund claim stands set aside in the light of law declared in Mafatlal s case and the refund claim was held to be dismissed as barred by time. The Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the responsibility of the concerned Commissioner to obtain stay order expeditiously where the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) suffer from serious infirmities and it involves grant of heavy refunds. Therefore, the period of one year shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of Commissioner (Appeals) order and not from the date of receipt of Tribunal s order. 7. For the refund claims arising out of order settling the dispute, there is specific provision made under Section 27(1B) which is reproduced below :- Section 27. Claim of refund of duty. - (1B) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitation of one year shall be computed in the following manner, namely :- (a) in the case of goods which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 25, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of issue of such order; (b) where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
