2002 (12) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order granting interest on delayed refund of deposit under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act.
2. Nature of deposit made by a person filing an appeal under Section 35F of Central Excise Act and Section 129E of Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs challenging the order granting interest on a delayed refund of a deposit under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The case involved a demand for duty amounting to Rs. 16,39,84,343 for the period 5-6-1992 to 31-12-1992. The Tribunal initially directed the respondent to deposit the amount, which was done by the respondent. Subsequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter. The respondent then applied for a refund, which was granted by the adjudicating authority but without interest. The appellate authority, however, granted interest on the refund, leading to the department's appeal.

2. The primary issue addressed was the nature of the deposit made by a person filing an appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal clarified that any deposit ordered by the appellate authority must be either duty, penalty, or interest. In this case, the deposit was for duty, as explicitly directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that even if a composite sum is ordered to be deposited without specifying duty or penalty, the character of the deposit remains as duty. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the deposit was merely a pre-deposit for appeal, emphasizing that it was in compliance with the lawful order. The judgment highlighted that the provisions of Section 11BB apply to such deposits, entitling the party to interest on delayed refunds.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Suvidhe Ltd. and clarified that the deposit under Section 35F is indeed duty, contrary to the argument that it is only a pre-deposit for appeal. The judgment emphasized that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply in such cases, as the duty deposited under Section 35F is bound to be refunded when the appeal is allowed. The Tribunal also referenced other relevant case laws and decisions to support its interpretation that the deposit made under Section 35F is considered duty and subject to the provisions of Section 11BB for interest on delayed refunds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the deposit made by the respondent was indeed duty, and the provisions of Section 11BB applied, entitling the respondent to interest on the delayed refund. The judgment clarified the nature of deposits made for appeals under Section 35F and established that such deposits are treated as duty, warranting interest on delayed refunds as per the statutory provisions.