9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (6) TMI 81 - AT - Central ExciseInterest on delayed refund of pre-deposit - Whether interest is payable to the Appellants on delayed refund of the amount deposited u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - We observe that it is now settled law that in case the matter is decided in favour of the assessee or the Appellant who has made pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act (or under Section 129E of the Customs Act), the said amount is to be refunded to him and in case of delay in making the refund of such amount by Revenue, he will also be eligible to interest on such amount at the appropriate rate. This was the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuil Fireworks Industries, 1997 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Apex Court has directed that the amount deposited by the Appellant be refunded to the appellant with interest @ 12%. We also observe that in the said matter out of Rs. 42 lakhs deposited by the appellant, Rs. 1.5 lakhs pertained to the payment made by them towards the impugned demand and only Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the Appellant in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal. The Madras High Court has taken quite a serious view in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1999 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS by holding that When once the appeal is allowed by the CEGAT, there is no justification or reason, or rhyme, for the respondents to retain the sum of Rs. 12.5. The Madras High Court has also held that When once the Order has been set aside by the CEGAT, it follows automatically that the respondents could have sent a advise intimating the refund of the pre-deposit made by the Petitioner, which the respondents had not also chosen to do. Both the Appellants are thus entitled to interest as the amount of pre-deposit has not been refunded to the Appellants immediately after the Order was passed by the Tribunal either allowing the appeal or remanding the matter for afresh adjudication. The question which is now to be decided is the date from which interest is to be paid. Recently the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Noida, 2003 (5) TMI 78 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI has directed the Department to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 12-2-2002. The learned Advocate for M/s. Sharda Synthetics Ltd., has pleaded for payment of interest after three months from the date of Tribunal's Order dated 19-10-94. Thus, following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (5) TMI 78 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , we hold that the Appellant No. 1 is eligible to interest on the amount of Pre-deposit from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 19-10-1994 till the date of payment i.e. 22-6-2000. M/s. Hindustan Wires Products have claimed the interest from 8-5-1996 to 14-1-99 which is admissible to them. Thus both the appeals are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest is payable on the delayed refund of the amount deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interest Payable on Delayed Refund: The primary issue in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to interest on the delayed refund of the amount deposited by them under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Appellant's Arguments: - The appellants argued that they are entitled to interest on the delayed refund of Rs. 75 lakhs deposited as per the Tribunal's Stay Order No. 237/93-A, dated 30-9-93. They contended that the amount should have been refunded immediately after the Tribunal's Final Order No. 303/94-A, dated 19-10-94, which remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. - The appellants cited several judgments, including Kuil Fireworks Industries v. C.C.E., Gulf Olefines (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., and Voltas Ltd. v. U.O.I., to support their claim for interest on the delayed refund. They emphasized that no formal refund claim is necessary for seeking a refund of the amount deposited under Section 35F, and the amount should be refunded immediately after the appeal is allowed or remanded. - The appellants also referred to Board's Circular No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, dated 2-1-2002, which clarified that pre-deposit amounts should be returned if the appellant succeeds in appeal or the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. Respondent's Arguments: - The respondent argued that the Tribunal's Order dated 19-10-1994 was not a final decision but merely a remand order. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to interest from the date of the remand order. - The respondent cited the Tribunal's decision in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. C.C.E., which held that interest on the pre-deposit amount is payable only from the date of the Final Order of the Tribunal. - The respondent contended that the delay in resolving the issue was due to the appellants' failure to provide complete records and declarations, and hence, the benefit of delay should not go to the appellants. Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal observed that it is settled law that in case the matter is decided in favor of the assessee or the appellant who has made a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the said amount is to be refunded, and in case of delay, the appellant is eligible for interest on such amount. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kuil Fireworks Industries, where the Apex Court directed the refund of the amount with interest at 12%. - The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the amount pre-deposited would be returnable only when the Final Order is passed. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Voltas Ltd. v. U.O.I., which held that even when the matter is remanded, the amount of pre-deposit is to be refunded. - The Tribunal also referred to the Board's Circular No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, which clarified that deposits should be returned if the appellant succeeds in appeal or the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that both appellants are entitled to interest as the amount of pre-deposit was not refunded immediately after the Tribunal's Order either allowing the appeal or remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. - Following the decision of the Larger Bench in Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., the Tribunal held that the appellant Sharda Synthetics Ltd. is eligible for interest on the pre-deposit amount from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's Final Order dated 19-10-1994 till the date of payment, i.e., 22-6-2000. - The Tribunal also held that M/s. Hindustan Wire Products are entitled to interest for the period from 8-5-1996 to 14-1-1999. Judgment: Both appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted interest on the delayed refund of the pre-deposit amounts as specified.
|
