9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 167 - AT - CustomsEnhancement of interest on refund of pre deposit - Revenue granted interest @6% whereas assessee contends that interest should be 12% - Held that - The refund of pre-deposit has been given to the Appellant consequent to the Order of the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta. The Hon ble High Court has ordered to refund the pre-deposit to the Appellant with applicable interest. The lower Adjudicating Authority has granted a refund along with the interest @ 6% - Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with the applicability of interest in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in ITC Ltd. 2004 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , as per the Notification No. 75/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 12-9-2003 issued under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribing the interest @ 6%. The Appellant has not produced anything contrary to the above - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Applicability of interest rate on refund of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The Appellant filed an Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the lower Adjudicating Authority's decision. The Appellant argued that the interest rate on their refund of pre-deposit should have been 12% instead of the granted 6%, citing a precedent case. The Department, represented by the learned AR, contended that the Appellant failed to provide evidence supporting their claim for a higher interest rate. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the refund with interest was ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in response to a writ petition. The lower Adjudicating Authority granted the refund with interest at 6%, which the Appellant disputed, seeking 12% based on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal observed that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the Supreme Court decision and the relevant Customs Act provisions prescribing a 6% interest rate. Since the Appellant did not present any evidence contradicting this, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the lower authorities. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Appeal, citing the lack of justification for altering the prescribed interest rate. The judgment highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims in legal proceedings, especially regarding statutory interest rates and precedent cases.
|
