TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Section 142 of the Act when read with Section 2(48) of the Act is a complete answer to the plea raised by the appellant qua the issue of jurisdiction. The provision explicitely provides that every claim of refund shall be dealt under the existing law i.e. Central Excise Act, 1944 and not by the provisions of the Act. Thus the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to GST regime is not available to the appellant - It is not disputed that the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Central Excise Act, 1944 are pari materia and, therefore, law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. [ 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] shall be applicable to the present case. The applicability thereof to the facts of the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities of Panipat Division for refund on 24th February, 2020. While the application of the Assessee was pending before the Authorities at Panipat Division, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Panchkula filed rectification of mistakes application before the CESTAT. The said application has also now been dismissed by the CESTAT vide order dated 30th December, 2021. Consequently, the Revenue has come in appeal against the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue has primarily raised question w.r.t. the change in jurisdiction of the Authorities after the coming of new CGST regime. He claims that w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w.e.f. 22nd June, 2017. For the administrative convenience, the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Tax and the Central Excise Officers has been kept identical. Thus, w.e.f. 22nd June, 2017, the Central Excise Division Panipat, which was earlier under the now dissolved Sonepat (Delhi III) Commissionerate, came under Panchkula Central Excise Commissionerate. Division Sonepat was brought within the jurisdiction of Rohtak Commissionerate. Thus, he claims that the respondent/Assessee impleaded wrong authorities for claim of refund and interest . 6. Secondly, the Counsel has argued that the Tribunal erred in granting interest as per the amended provisions of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. Having heard Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instance and the intervention of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1887 of 1992 dated 30.04.1997. Interest on delayed payment of refund was not paid to the appellant on 27.03.1981 and 30.04.1986 due to the erroneous view that had been taken by the officials of the respondents. Interest on refund was granted to the appellant after a substantial lapse of time and hence it should be entitled to compensation for this period of delay. The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assesses, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principle amount of tax payable remain outstanding and they are entitled to charge interest till the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury; the consideration or price of a privilege purchased; some thing given or obtained as an equivalent; the rendering of an equivalent in value or amount; an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; the giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for the whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description; remuneration for loss of time, necessary ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is solely responsible for the delayed payment, we feel that the interest of justice would be amply met if we order payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date it became payable till the date it is actually paid. Even though the appellant is entitled to interest prior to 31.03.1986, learned counsel for the appellant fairly restricted his claim towards interest from 31.03.1986 to 27.03.1998 on which date a sum of ₹ 40,84,906/- was refunded. 50. The assessment years in question in the four appeals are the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Already the matter was pending for more than two decades. We, therefore, direct the respondents herein to pay the interest on ₹ 40,84,906 (rounded of to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
