2018 (6) TMI 1300 - AT - Service Tax

100% EOU - Refund of Interest made on the pre-deposit - Section 35FF of CEA - pre-deposit of ₹ 32,62,000/- was made on 9.2.2016 - Held that - Pre-deposit of ₹ 32,62,000/- does not pertain to the appeal of 2014. Other set of appeals in the above mentioned Final order pertain to the period after 6.8.2014 for which the appellant claim to have made pre-deposit and have stated so in their refund application. This aspect has been completely ignored by the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority for the purpose of refund of interest - The finding given by the first appellate authority on pre-deposit pertaining to period before the Finance Act 2014 therefore appears to be clearly erroneous. The matter is therefore remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the claim of interest of the appellant after verifying that the appellant has made pre-deposit pursuant to their appeal against order dated 30.10.2015 in terms of Section 35FF - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of interest on pre-deposit made by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Panchkula, regarding the liability of broken rice and rice bran to excise duty when cleared to DTA. The appellant made pre-deposit of ?32,62,000 on 9.2.2016 in accordance with the demand confirmed by the Commissioner's order dated 30.10.2015. The Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant in Final Order No.A/61323-61326/2017-Ex (DB) dated 5.7.2017. The appellant sought a refund of the pre-deposit along with interest. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of ?32,62,000 but did not address the refund of interest. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the interest refund, which was rejected, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the pre-deposit was made following the demand confirmed by the Commissioner's order dated 30.10.2015, and therefore, the refund of interest under Section 35FF should apply. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for applying circulars and case laws from a period before 6.8.2014 to the current case. The appellant contended that the provision for interest refund under Section 35FF applies to deposits made after 6.8.2014 when mandatory deposits began.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the pre-deposit of ?32,62,000 was made on 9.2.2016 pursuant to the Commissioner's order dated 30.10.2015. The Tribunal noted that the pre-deposit did not relate to the appeal of 2014 but to a subsequent period. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority had overlooked the appellant's claim of pre-deposit made after 6.8.2014. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reassess the appellant's interest claim based on the pre-deposit made after 6.8.2014 in accordance with Section 35FF.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a proper reconsideration of the appellant's interest refund claim based on the pre-deposit made after 6.8.2014 in line with the law.