9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 228 - AT - Central ExciseClaim of Refund of interest paid on duty - Taking over by the another company - Department did not allow transfer of registration and cancellation of registration, the appellant had to make the payment of balance dues with interest - HC hold that appellant was eligible for the credit and allowed the appeal. - the appellant filed a refund claim for ₹ 14,74,012/- paid in cash by them comprising of inadmissible credit of ₹ 6,96,710/- and interest of ₹ 7,77,302/- Held that - After going through the records, it was found that interest was added to the duty in Section 11B in May 2008. However, the Parliament did not consider it appropriate that the word interest should be added in Section 11BB also. If interest was also to be added in Section 11BB while providing for payment of interest on duty, the claim of the appellant could have been sustained. When the statute does not provide for payment of interest while sanctioning the refund of interest on duty, the Tribunal has no power to order refund of interest on interest being creation of the statute. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for CENVAT credit on materials rejected and returned for reprocessing. 2. Legality of the collection of duty and interest. 3. Entitlement to interest on the refunded interest amount. 4. Applicability of legal provisions and precedents regarding interest on interest. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on Rejected Materials: During the period from 3.7.2001 to 31.3.2002, the appellant, a manufacturer of aluminium extrusion and parts of electric meters, availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,53,805/- on materials rejected by customers and returned for refining and reprocessing. The Revenue contended that the conditions under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules were not met. Consequently, a demand for duty of Rs. 13,93,690/- was confirmed with interest. The Tribunal initially directed a 50% pre-deposit and later rejected the appeal, denying the CENVAT credit. The appellant, after taking over the unit, paid the balance dues with interest under compulsion to facilitate the transfer of registration. 2. Legality of the Collection of Duty and Interest: The appellant argued that the amount was illegally and forcibly collected, as the lower officers refused to cancel the previous registration and issue a new one without payment. The learned AR countered that the collection was lawful, upheld by the Tribunal, and without a stay from the High Court, the collection was not illegal. The Tribunal noted that the collection was based on a confirmed demand and upheld by two appellate levels, thus not illegal. 3. Entitlement to Interest on the Refunded Interest Amount: The appellant sought interest on the refunded interest amount of Rs. 7,77,302/-. The learned AR argued that legal provisions do not allow interest on interest. The Tribunal examined several decisions cited by the appellant but found them inapplicable. For instance, in Binjrajka Steel Tubes, the Tribunal held that interest is payable when the amount is collected without authority, which was not the case here as the collection was upheld by the Tribunal. Similarly, in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the Supreme Court held that illegal collection without authority necessitates compensation, but this did not apply as the collection was lawful. 4. Applicability of Legal Provisions and Precedents: The Tribunal reviewed Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11B covers claims for refund of duty and interest, while Section 11BB pertains to interest on delayed refunds. The Tribunal noted that interest was added to Section 11B in May 2008, but not to Section 11BB. Therefore, without statutory provision for interest on refunded interest, the Tribunal lacked the authority to grant such a claim. Conclusion: The appeal was rejected as the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim for interest on the refunded interest amount. The collection of duty and interest was deemed lawful, and the statutory framework did not support the claim for interest on interest. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.
|
