9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The appellant had sought refund of an amount of Rs. 32 lakhs and Rs. 84 lakhs deposited by the appellant in the two appeals filed before the Tribunal towards the pre-deposit amount required to be deposited under section 35F of the Excise Act as the appeals were ultimately allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 28.02.2019. The Deputy Commissioner directed for refund of the pre-deposit amount, but rejected the claim for interest for the reason that section 35F of the Excise Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, would be applicable and not the amended provisions. The Deputy Commissioner found, as a fact in both the matters, that the refund had been sanctioned within three months from the date it was claimed and, therefore, interest would not be payable. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) were also rejected for this reason. 4. To appreciate the submissions advanced by Shri PVB Chary, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri AVLN Chary, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, it would be necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 35FF of the Excise Act, as it stood prior to 6.08.2014 and after 06.8.2014. Prior to 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Trade and Taxes [2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 478 (Del.)] and the decision of the Tribunal in Riba Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Panchkula [Excise Appeal No. 60446 of 2018 decided on 07.01.2020]. 6. Learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, however, supported the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that in view of the proviso to the amended section 35FF of the Excise Act, the unamended provisions of the section 35FF of the Excise Act would be applicable and so the appellant would not be entitled to interest as the amount was refunded within three months from the date of communication of such order. In support of this submission learned authorized representative placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Hindustan Agro Insecticides vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur [2019 (367) E.L.T. 669 (Tri. - Hyd.) ]; (ii) M/s. Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST-Chandigarh-I [Service TAX Appeal No. 60175 of 2020 decided on 03.12.2020]; and (iii) Commissioner of Customs & GST, Mumbai West vs. Juhu Beach Resort Ltd. [2020 (371) E.L.T. 622 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 7. The submissions advanced by the learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 35FF of the Excise Act would be applicable under which no interest can be paid if the amount is deposited within three months from the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the relevant observations made in the judgment are reproduced below: "Section 35FF of the Act provides for the payment of interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under Section 35F of the Act. The aforesaid provision as it stood at the relevant time i.e. on 03.08.2016 or 28.11.2016, when the appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the amount was refunded provided that where any amount deposited in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the Appellate Authority, such amount shall be refunded and if it is not so refunded within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Authority, interest shall be payable at the rate specified under Section 11BB of the Act after the expiry of the aforesaid three months. A reading of the aforesaid provision reflects that any amount deposited pursuant to the order passed by any Authority is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he unamended Section 35FF of the Act. Accordingly, if at all the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the amount refunded, it will be for the period the amount had remained with the respondents after three months from the date of communication of the appellate order." 11. This judgment of the Allahabad High Court was followed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Fujikawa Power vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh-I [Excise Appeal No. 60966 of 2019 decided on 26.11.2019] 12. A learned Member of the Tribunal in Hindustan Agro Insecticides, also observed as follows: "5. I have considered the arguments made in the appeal memorandum and the relevant legal provisions. The proviso to amend Section 35FF makes it clear that in respect of any amounts pre-deposited prior to 6-8-2014 will continue to be covered by the provisions of the unamended Section 35FF. The unamended provisions provided for payment of interest only if the pre-deposit was not refunded within three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority. Therefore, no interest is payable to the appellant in this case. The impugned order is correct and calls for no interference. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
