TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned judgement dated 8.4.2015. In that circular the Board emphasised that the amounts other than the amount of duty if deposited it should be refunded immediately as non-returning of deposits attract interest that has been granted by the Courts in number of cases. Since the amount in question was not the amount of pre-deposit as required under section 35F of Central Excise Act, section 35FF has been wrongly invoked by Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while holding that since there is no provision to grant interest on the seized currency notes while refunding the said currency, the interest from the date of seizure cannot be granted. Commissioner (Appeals) is held to have ignored the judicial precedence as discussed above and thus is held to have committed violation of principles of judicial protocol - the order under challenge is hereby set aside and appellant is held entitled for refund of interest on the principle amount at the rate of 12% from the date of its seizure. Appeal allowed. - EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51493 OF 2022 - FINAL ORDER No. 51128 /2022 - Dated:- 2-12-2022 - DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Shri Apoorv Phillip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. 3. It is submitted that findings of Adjudicating Authority while denying the interest to the appellant from the date of deposit or at least from the date it was got fixed with the Bank are absolutely unreasonable. The decision of Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported as [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] is alleged to have been wrongly interpreted by the authority. It is submitted that present is not at all the case of unjust enrichment. The seized currency in the present case was never deemed to be the duty nor ever it has been adjudicated as being the amount for duty liability. Hence, the amount was absolutely out of scope of section 11B/11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, the finding of Adjudicating Authority that the impugned seized currency was towards the probable Central Excise duty is alleged to be factually erroneous and unsustainable. Learned Counsel further submits that the finding by the authority that the interest earned on the fixed deposit is not liable to be refunded to the appellant are not at all tenable. Learned Counsel submits that the Adjudicating Authority have wrongly relied upon the decision of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apparent from the above noticed facts, the moot adjudication is as to whether section 11B/11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable in the present facts and circumstances. The issue has earlier been dealt with by this Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in the case of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, GST [2021-TIOL-306-CEST-ALL], I also endorse the following findings: 30. In the present case, the provisions of section 11B of the Excise Act would not be applicable. This is for the reason that the appellant was not claiming refund of duty. The applicant, as noticed above, had claimed refund of the revenue deposit. Such a finding has also been clearly recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 31.01.2017, which order has attained finality. 31. Section 11D of the Excise Act deals with duties of excise collected from the buyer to be deposited with Central Government. It provides that every person who is liable to pay duty and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed from the buyer of such goods in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. 32. Section 11DD of the Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act as far as the payment of interest is concerned shall be applicable only in the cases for such deposits as have been made under section 35F of the Act. As already observed in the present case, the amount in question is neither the amount of duty nor is the amount of pre deposit, the amount in question is merely a deposit with the Revenue which the Revenue had no authority to retain as the appellant was the owner thereof. 8. As per Article 300A of Constitution of India, also no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. Once confiscation order about impugned currency get set aside. It is clear that currency in question has been appellant s property. He cannot be deprived of the same and is entitled for benefits arising out of said property. Hence interest accrued on the amount in question during the period it was in fixed deposit is the property of the owner of the amount i.e. the appellant herein. I draw my support from the decision of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of RHL Profiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Ex and Service Tax, Kanpur reported as [2017 (352) ELT 349 (All)] has held that once the confiscation has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
