9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1057 - AT - Service TaxEligibility to claim interest on the refund granted - refund was sought from the Haryana Housing Board - intere st denied on the ground that refund has been given within 90 days of the application - HELD THAT - In this case the refund has been sanctioned in time. As there is no delay in sanctioning the refund there are no provisions in the statute to grant interest. Tribunal being a creature of statute cannot travel beyond the provisions of Law or statute. It is found that the appellants have cited so many decisions on the issue of payment of interest. However the facts of all the cases are different as all the cases involve delayed sanction of refund. The instant case is not about the delay in sanction of refund and consequential payment of interest. Therefore the cases cited are not applicable as the facts and circumstances are different. Hon ble High court also took cognizance of the peculiar circumstances of the case. In view of the same the appellants have not made out any case for grant of interest on the amount refunded. Conclusion - The refund was processed within the statutory period and no interest is payable as per the statutory provisions. Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered was whether the appellants are eligible to claim interest on the refund of service tax granted to them. The underlying questions include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework revolves around Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, which govern the refund of duties and interest on delayed refunds. The Tribunal considered precedents from various cases cited by both the appellant and the respondent, including Sandvik Asia Ltd., Marshall Foundry and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and others. These cases discuss the nature of interest as compensation for the loss caused by the retention of money. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal interpreted that the refund application filed by the appellant on June 14, 2019, was a fresh application as directed by the High Court, and not a continuation of the application filed by the Housing Board. The Tribunal reasoned that the statutory provisions require the refund to be processed within a specified period from the date of the application, and since the refund was processed within this period, no interest is warranted. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal noted that the refund was granted within 90 days of the appellant's application, which aligns with the statutory timeframe. The High Court's orders and the correspondence between the appellant and the Housing Board were key pieces of evidence considered in determining the sequence of events and compliance with statutory requirements. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the statutory provisions to the facts by determining that the refund was processed within the legally prescribed period, and therefore, the statutory framework does not support the payment of interest. The Tribunal also noted that the High Court did not direct the payment of interest in its final order. Treatment of Competing Arguments The appellant argued for interest based on precedents where interest was awarded for delayed refunds. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases on the basis that they involved delays beyond the statutory period, which was not the case here. The respondent's argument that the Tribunal, as a statutory body, cannot grant relief beyond statutory provisions was upheld. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the appellants are not entitled to interest on the refunded amount as the refund was processed within the statutory timeframe, and there was no directive from the High Court to award interest. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "Tribunal being a creature of statute cannot travel beyond the provisions of Law or statute." Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the refund was processed within the statutory period, and no interest is payable as per the statutory provisions. The Tribunal upheld the interpretation that the appellant's application was a fresh application and not a continuation of the Housing Board's application, thereby negating the claim for interest from the date of the original deposit.
|
