2000 (7) TMI 720 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in refund of deposited amount by Revenue.
2. Failure to respond to appellant's requests for refund.
3. Appellant's claim for interest on delayed refund.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in refund of deposited amount by Revenue
The appellant filed an appeal against the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal, which was done. The appeal was eventually allowed in favor of the appellant. Despite this, the appellant faced delays in receiving the refund of the deposited amount. The Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned the refund on 15-7-1996, but the appellant did not receive the cheque until 14-7-2000. The Tribunal noted the unusual delay in refunding the amount and criticized the Revenue's conduct for withholding the refund for an extended period.

Issue 2: Failure to respond to appellant's requests for refund
Following the Tribunal's order, the appellant approached the Revenue multiple times requesting the refund along with interest, but received no response. The appellant wrote letters to various authorities, including the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner of Central Excise, but did not receive any satisfactory outcome. The Tribunal observed the lack of communication and responsiveness from the Revenue despite the appellant's persistent efforts to claim the refund rightfully due to them.

Issue 3: Appellant's claim for interest on delayed refund
During the proceedings, the appellant informed the Tribunal that they had received the refund cheque on 14-7-2000 but had not been provided with any interest. Citing a previous decision, the appellant requested interest at a rate of 12% per annum on the delayed refund amount. The Tribunal, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, directed the Revenue to pay interest at the specified rate, starting from three months after the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely refund and held the Revenue accountable for the delay, ordering the payment of interest as requested by the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the inefficiency and lack of responsiveness on the part of the Revenue in processing the appellant's refund, leading to significant delays. The Tribunal, recognizing the appellant's right to interest on the delayed refund amount, directed the Revenue to pay interest at the specified rate, emphasizing the importance of prompt and efficient refund processes in such cases.