2019 (11) TMI 1422 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on Refund - refund of duty during the course of investigation - duty paid under protest - HELD THAT - The dispute relates to the interest required to be paid on the said deposited amount. It is seen that the appellants before the Lower Authorities have relied upon various decisions in support of their contention that they are entitled to interest from the date of deposit of the said amount as the same has to be considered as deposits and not duty. Reliance can be placed in the case of GOLDSTONE ENGINEERING LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2004 (4) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD . Matter remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision in the light of the law declared in the referred decisions - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interest on deposited amount, applicability of legal decisions cited by appellant, interpretation of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant had deposited a significant amount under protest during an investigation, which was later refunded to them after the Tribunal set aside the demands. However, a dispute arose regarding the interest on the deposited amount. The appellant argued that they were entitled to interest from the date of deposit as it should be considered a deposit and not duty. The appellant relied on various legal decisions to support their claim, including cases like Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. and Binjrajka Steel Tube Ltd.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that since the refund was granted before the three-month period stipulated under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there was no basis for granting interest. The Commissioner found no legal grounds for the appellant's claim and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found that the legal issue was settled by the decisions cited by the appellant and decided to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision in light of the legal principles established in the referenced decisions or any other relevant decisions the appellant might rely upon. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant would have the opportunity to present their case in this fresh consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision based on the legal principles established in the cited decisions.