TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [ 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] . Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE VERSUS M/S. PRICOL LTD., THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 2015 (3) TMI 735 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] have held that any amount deposited during investigation has to be treated as pre-deposit and the same is neither hit by limitation nor by the clause of unjust enrichment for the purpose of refund. Thus, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is hit by limitation and unjust enrichment, and further interest is not payable under section 35FF - the appellant is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Cenvat credit was disallowed for Rs. 64,244/- alongwith equal penalty plus interest. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal and finally in the 2nd round of appeal before this Tribunal, the appeal was allowed in part vide final order dated 9th January 2020, by which the demand was set aside, except confirmation of duty of Rs. 5,76,425/-. 3. Thereafter, the appellant requested for granting of refund of the amount deposited during investigation, as well as the pre-deposit made pursuant to stay order, of Rs. 8 lakhs on 6th February 2009, by their request letter dated 6th July 2020. The Adjudicating Authority was pleased to allow refund of the principal amount of Rs. 8.5 lakhs however, denied the claim of interest. Being aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en. As regards, interest under Section 35FF, it has been held that the appellant is entitled to interest only on the amount, which was required to be deposited in terms of section 35F of the Act, at the time of filing of the appeal (2nd round) filed on 4th July 2017. Further, observing that as the remaining amount of refund has been sanctioned within the stipulated time, no interest is payable thereon. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this tribunal. 6. Heard the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee Mr. Jitin Singhal urges that the issue of the eligible amount on which interest is payable, as well as the rate at which the interest is payable under Section 35FF is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is hit by limitation and unjust enrichment, and further interest is not payable under section 35FF. 9. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was deposited on 30th January 2003. Further held that appellant is entitled to interest on the full amount of Rs. 8.5 lakhs from the date of deposit till the date of refund @ of 12% per annum under the provisions of Section 35FF of the Act. 10. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the balance refund, as well as the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
