2007 (11) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Appellant seek interest on penalty which was returned belatedly by revenue - Section 27A specifically refers to interest payable on duty - There is no provision of law which provide for payment of interest either by the department in the event of refund of penalty, or by the parties in the event of delay in deposition of penalty there is no infirmity in the order of the Comm (A) which has followed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal to deny interest on belatedly retuned penalty

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit of penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund of a pre-deposit of penalty. The appellant sought interest on the amount refunded after the penalty was set aside. The appellant argued that interest should be paid as compensation since the amount was in the department's possession. The advocate relied on various decisions and circulars to support the claim for interest, emphasizing that interest is compensatory in nature. The Department, however, contended that no interest was payable on the refund of pre-deposit. The Tribunal considered the nature of interest, stating that it becomes payable based on specific statutory provisions. The Tribunal highlighted that provisions related to confiscation and penalty are penal in nature, and there is no provision for the grant of interest or recovery of interest on delayed payment of penalty under the Customs Act.

The Tribunal discussed the decisions of the Larger Bench in two cases, Mulji Narshi Shah and Advance Mechanical Works. While the former allowed interest on delayed payment of penalty, the latter held that no interest was payable on redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal noted that there is no provision in the law for the payment of interest by the department on refunds or by parties on whom penalties are imposed. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the draft circular mentioned in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of ITC Ltd., which did not explicitly state that interest is payable on all pre-deposits upon favorable orders. The Tribunal agreed with the interpretation that interest liability would arise if payment is delayed beyond three months. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, following the precedent set by the Larger Bench in the case of Advance Mechanical Works.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that interest on pre-deposit refunds of penalties is not automatically payable and must be determined based on specific statutory provisions. The decision aligned with the interpretation that interest liability arises only if payment is delayed beyond three months, as per the draft circular and relevant legal precedents.