9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with the instructions of CBIC. 7. In view of such pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on the issue of granting of interest on delayed refunds, I find that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of UCAL Fuel Systems Limited without looking at the decisions of the Supreme Court etc. on the issue appears to have been made as such binding decisions are not placed before the Hon'ble bench. I also find that another bench of Hon'ble Tribunal decided the issue of interest in their order reported in 2018-TIOL-3038 in the case of M/s Ratnamai Metals and Tubes Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. UOI supra. It is also on record that the relied upon decision of the Tribunal in the earlier proceeding dated 03/04/2009 has not attained finality, and also that the order dated 03/01/2019 was accepted purely on monetary grounds, and therefore, I find that the Assistant Commissioner should look into the issue afresh and decide the eligibility of interest in terms of statutory provisions after obtaining a legal opinion on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f inputs and capital goods. In that circumstances, it was directed to the appellant, do forcefully to reverse the cenvat credit and the same was paid by the appellant under protest. The amount so deposited is not duty and the same has been decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 30.04.2009, the amount paid under protest which is held to be not the duty. In that circumstances, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Central Excise, Chennai-II vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. (supra) the assessee is entitled to claim the interest from the date deposit to its realization. Therefore, we hold that appellants are entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of deposit, as mentioned in para no. 2 hereinabove, till its realization. 8. In these terms, the appeal is allowed. " 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Assistant Commissioner passed Order in Original No. 426-R/AC/D-I/GBN/19-20 dated 22.11.2019 sanctioning the amount of interest of Rs 69,44,200/- to the appellant. The order dated 22.11.2019 was then reviewed and appeal against the same was filed by revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said order dated 03.01.2019 was not challenged further. Once this is so, the said order dated 03.01.2019 attained finality between the parties and the Assistant Commissioner was bound by the said order. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) taking a contra view on the issue of entitlement and period of interest, is therefore contrary to the principle of judicial discipline as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., (1991) 55 ELT 433, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:- "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual mala fides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CTM Textile Mills v. Union of India (2009) 246 ELT 148 (Guj) has held as follows:- "15. The challenge to consequential order dated 4-1-2006 made by the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to order made by the Tribunal is not required to be entertained on merits considering the fact that the said order is not an independent order made for the first time. The said order had already been made on 5-6-2003. It was only because the intervening order dated 19-09-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals), that the Adjudicating Authority was required to pass consequential order once again on 4-1-2006 pursuant to order made by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, once the order of Tribunal had attained finality, the petitioner cannot claim any relief." 15. The finding recorded in the impugned order that the order dated 03.01.2019 was accepted by the revenue purely on monetary grounds, appears to be incorrect, as the quantum of interest i.e. Rs 69,44,200/- is higher than the prevailing monetary limit i.e. Rs 50,00,000/-. 16. As the impugned order heavily relies upon acceptance of order dated 03.01.2019 on monetary limits, hence we may also refer to Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is restricted to the same authority i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or the Court, whose order was not challenged by the revenue because of monetary limit and it is the same authority i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or the Court, which shall have regard to the circumstances in which such appeal, application, revision or reference was not filed. Any interpretation other than this would result in chaos in administration of justice, as a well-reasoned order of a higher court would not be followed by a lower court, merely because the decision was accepted on monetary grounds. Thus, sub-section (4) of Section 35R can be invoked only by the same authority/court or the superior authority/court and not by the inferior authority/court. 19. Therefore, when revenue is alleging non-filing of appeal against order dated 03.01.2019 passed by this Tribunal purely on monetary grounds, it is this Tribunal alone, which can consider the circumstances in which the appeal was not filed by the revenue and may take appropriate decision on the issue. However, sub-section (4) of Section 35R cannot be applied by the lower authority i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals) in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
