2019 (7) TMI 629 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of pre-deposit - sanctioned refund was adjusted by refund sanctioning authority towards alleged outstanding interest liability/arrears - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly the appellant has not reversed the interest on the credit. Adjudicating authority vide Order dated 19.06.2018 has adjusted the sanctioned refund towards the arrears of interest. It is seen that the appellant was not given any personal hearing with regard to adjustment sought to be made by the adjudicating authority. The proceedings were with regard to request for refund of pre deposit only. The learned consultant has adverted attention to the amendments brought forth in Rule 14 of CCR during the relevant period involved in these two proceedings refund as well as wrongly availed credit . The appellant ought to be given a chance to explain as to the liability to pay interest during the period. For verifying the liability/quantification of interest that has to be paid by the appellant the matter requires to be remanded. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund adjustment towards outstanding interest liability, Principles of natural justice violation, Finality of interest liability determination, Eligibility for interest on sanctioned refund.

Analysis:
1. Refund Adjustment towards Outstanding Interest Liability:
The case involved the appellants seeking a refund of a pre-deposit made in an appeal before CESTAT. The refund was adjusted by the authority towards alleged outstanding interest liability related to an earlier case. The appellant contended that the adjustment was made without a personal hearing and without quantifying the interest amount. The Tribunal held that the appellant should be given a chance to explain the liability to pay interest on the wrongly availed credit and remanded the matter for quantification of interest liability.

2. Principles of Natural Justice Violation:
The appellant argued that the adjustment of the refund towards interest arrears was done without following the principles of natural justice. They claimed that their correspondence with the department regarding non-liability to pay interest was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant was not given a personal hearing regarding the adjustment and directed the adjudicating authority to consider the appellant's contentions.

3. Finality of Interest Liability Determination:
The issue of the appellant's liability to pay interest on the wrongly availed credit had been a subject of previous proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the demand of interest had not been quantified or determined by a competent authority, and therefore, the matter had not attained finality. The Tribunal directed the authority to quantify the interest liability on the wrongly availed credit after considering the appellant's pleas.

4. Eligibility for Interest on Sanctioned Refund:
The Tribunal observed that as per Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, the appellant was eligible for interest on the pre-deposit if not refunded within three months from the date of the court's decision. Since the refund was sanctioned after the stipulated period, the appellant was entitled to interest for the intervening period. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the eligibility of interest on the sanctioned refund and grant the same to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of adjusting the sanctioned refund towards interest liability and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification of interest liability and consideration of interest on the sanctioned refund. The appeal was partly allowed and partly remanded for further proceedings.