TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the present case the duty has been deposited voluntarily and not under protest also does not have any force because consistently it has been held that any amount that is deposited during pendency of the adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under protest as held by the 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] , COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE 7-A, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW VERSUS M/S EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. [ 2017 (2) TMI 197 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] . Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 60347 Of 2022 - A/60092/2023 - Dated:- 11-4-2023 - Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Varun Gaba, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Gupta, Shri Amandeep Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant for claim of interest on delayed refund. 2. Briefl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 24.12.2019 rejected the refund claim. The findings of the adjudicating authority was confirmed and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 11.01.2021. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order dated 14.06.2021 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order-in-appeal and it was held that the refund claim filed by the appellant was within limitation. Thereafter, the appellant wrote letters to the department for granting of refund claim which was finally sanctioned vide order dated 13.04.2022 under Section 11B Section 11BB, however, no interest was granted to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed a letter with department requesting to grant the interest for the delayed refund but in reply to the said letter, the appellant was simply asked to avail the appellate remedy without providing any reasoning for not granting the interest. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal against the said order dated 13.04.2022 but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) denied the interest by rejecting the appeal of the appellant vide its order dated 25.07.2022 with a finding that the refund claim was duly sanctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi M/s Prem Jain Ispat Udyog vs. CGST ST, Udaipur-2022 (5) TMI 645-CESTAT New Delhi. M/s Pensla Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST Jalandhar 2019 (12) TMI 9-CESTAT Chandigarh Ld. Counsel also submitted that this Tribunal has already decided the matter involving similar facts wherein this Tribunal has granted the interest from the date of deposit till its realization @ 12% per annum and he cited the following decisions:- Shahi Exports Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE ST- Haryana 2021 (130) taxman.com 476 (Chandigarh-CESTAT) M/s Fujikawa Power M/s Kenzo International vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh-I 2019 (11) TMI 1197 M/s Marshall Foundry Engg Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Faridabad 2019 (11) TMI 1269 M/s Marshall Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE ST, Faridabad-2022 (3) TMI 801. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR filed detailed written submissions mainly on the issue that the amount deposited by the appellant was not under protest and during investigation, the investigation was conducted for the period upto 2013-14. He further submitted that during the impugned period i.e. for the year 2014-2015, no show cause notice was issued to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itten submissions made and the judgement relied upon by the respondent in his rebuttal. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has tried to distinguish the present case from the decisions relied upon by the revenue on the ground that the facts in those decisions were entirely different whereas in the present case amount was deposited under protest during investigation and finally refund was sanctioned and it was held by the Tribunal that the same is not barred by limitation. 7. I have heard the rival submissions made by the parties and has considered the submissions of the parties and has also gone through the judgements relied upon by both the parties, the only issue involved in the present case relates to non sanctioning of the interest on the refund sanctioned by the department and further the rate of interest on delayed refund. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in various cases and it has been consistently held that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment at the rate of 12%. Further, I find this Tribunal in the case of Reba Textiles Ltd. after considering the various decisions held that the assessee is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be paid by the respondents as per the directions of this Court in Ext. P12 judgment is fixed at 12% per annum. 15. Taking note of the compendious circumstances and reckoning the law, there will be a direction to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at 12% from the date of expiry of three months from 18-11-2002, to the amount of refund already made, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting any interest paid. 20. Further, the same view was taken in the case Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (260) ELT 274 (Tri.Ahmd.), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I notice that appellants deposited amount in September, October and in November 2004, as per the directions of the department. In September 2004, the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court had dismissed the SCA filed by the appellants against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit. This SCA was dismissed in September 2004 and SLP was filed in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in October 2004. In July 2005, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court ordered that if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h deals with refund of Revenue deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded. 39. In this connection reference can also made to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pace marketing Specialities and Ebiz. Com Private Limited, wherein after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the High Court granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum in matters relating to refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication. 40. In Riba Textiles, the Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 12% on refund of amount deposited during investigation and at the time of entertaining the stay application. 41. In view of the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the rate of interest varies from 6% to 18% in the aforesaid Notification issued under Section 11AA, 11BB, 11DD and 11AB of the Excise Act, the grant of interest @ 12 % per annum seems to be appropriate. 42. Thus, for the reason stated above, Excise Appeal no. 70628 of 2019 is allowed and the order dated 28-05-2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified to the extent that interest shall be gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
