TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has been rejected by the authorities below. 2. The facts of the case are that in terms of the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit to entertain the appeal and the same was deposited by the appellant on 09.04.2010. The said appeal was decided by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 23.07.2010; thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dt. 05.09.2019 dropped the demand against the appellant with consequential relief. On 04.11.2019, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim to the appellant in terms of the order of this Tribunal dt. 05.09.2019 on the amount of pre-deposit made in terms of the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without interest. The appellant claimed the interest by filing this appeal from the date of deposit till its realization. 3. Heard the parties. 4. During the course of arguments, the ld. Counsel for the appellant adopted the arguments advanced by Ms. Krati Singh, Advocate appearing in the case M/s Modern Dairies Ltd listed on the same day. 5. As the case of M/s Modern Dairies Ltd has been decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andedness by not to refund the amount to the appellant. The same is in contravention of the speech given by the Hon ble Finance Minister on 08.11.2019 where the Hon ble Finance Minister has said that the Revenue Officers are the facilitators for the tax payer; whereas in this case, the act of the Revenue Officer does not seem to be a facilitator for the tax payer. Therefore, as held by this Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of ₹ 15 lacs. Furthermore, during the course of arguments, it came to the knowledge of the Bench that the appellant filed the appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority appropriating the amount of refund claim before the Commissioner (Appeals) and intimated to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dt. 12.06.2019 that this Tribunal has allowed the refund to the appellant on 21.05.2019. Instead of taking note of the said fact, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant without taking note of the decision of this Tribunal on 22.07.2019, whereas the order of this Tribunal was uploaded on the website itself on 01.07.2019. The act of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be appreciated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in hand as in that case this Tribunal has held that refund claim is pre mature as no adjudication took place while deciding the claim of interest. 15 . Further, I find that in the case of IFP Products (P) Ltd (supra), the issue has been dealt in details by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed as under: The aforesaid provision of Section 35FF of the Act was amended by the Finance Act No. 25 of 2014 with effect from 06.08.2014 and it was provided that where any amount deposited by the party under Section 35F of the Act is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the Appellate Authority, it will carry an interest at the specified rate till the date of refund. It permits payment of interest at the specified rate for the entire period, the amount remains deposited with the authority. However, the aforesaid provision has been subjected to a proviso, which lays down that if any amount has been deposited prior to the enforcement of the Finance Act No. 25 of 2014 i.e. before 06.08.2014, it shall continue to be governed by the unamended provision of Section 35FF of the Act, which means that in cases of deposit made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26.04.2017 passed in Central Excise Appeal No. 127 of 2015, R.H.L. Profiles Limited Vs. Commissioner, Customs, Excise and Services, Kanpur. In the said case, the sole question, which came up for consideration, was whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of interest on the amount refunded on the ground that there is no provision for paying interest on such amount. The aforesaid question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department holding that where the amount was illegally detained by the Revenue and ultimately, refunded, the assessee is entitled to interest even though there may not be a specific provision to that effect. This was laid down following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Director of Income Tax Vs. TATA Chemicals Limited (2014) 6 SCC 335, wherein it was held that when the collection is illegal, there is corresponding obligation on the Revenue to refund such amount with interest. The aforesaid decisions would not be any help of the petitioner inasmuch as ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
