2016 (3) TMI 806 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - pre-deposit - Held that - In the instant case, an amount of ₹ 11 lakhs was deposited during investigation and was appropriated in the Order-in-Original. The said Order-in-Original was set aside by the order of the Tribunal dated 19.7.2005 and hence, in terms of the Circular No. 802/35/04-CX dated 8.12.2004 the refund of ₹ 11 lakhs becomes due along with interest at the applicable rate. In this very case, this Tribunal has ordered refund of pre-deposit along with interest to M/s Interscape in terms of order dated 21.5.2010 as modified by the order dated 21.1.2011 2011 (1) TMI 675 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . The deposits made by the SHPL during investigations were appropriated against redemption fine. As soon as the order appropriating such fine was set aside, they became eligible to refund of the deposits made during the investigations in terms of Circular No. 802/35/04-CX dated 8.12.2004 read with the decisions of the tribunal cited above in this para. In view of the above, the appellants are also entitled to interest

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Rs. 11 lakhs paid by M/s SHPL during investigation.
2. Entitlement to interest on the refunded amount.
3. Appropriation of Rs. 11 lakhs against redemption fine.
4. Applicability of Tribunal's order in M/s Interscape's case to M/s SHPL.
5. Timeliness and procedural correctness of the refund claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of Rs. 11 lakhs paid by M/s SHPL during investigation:
M/s SHPL paid Rs. 11 lakhs under protest during an investigation by the Central Excise officers. A show-cause notice was issued to M/s SHPL on 15.4.1998, which was later dropped on 29.1.2001. M/s SHPL filed a refund claim for the Rs. 11 lakhs, which was initially returned as premature and later rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund but did not address interest. The Tribunal found that the Rs. 11 lakhs deposited during the investigation should be treated as a pre-deposit, and upon the setting aside of the Order-in-Original by the Tribunal, the refund became due.

2. Entitlement to interest on the refunded amount:
M/s SHPL sought interest on the refunded amount. The Tribunal referenced Circular No. 802/35/04-CX dated 8.12.2004, which mandates that pre-deposits should be refunded within three months of the disposal of the appeal in favor of the assessee, with interest accruing in case of default. The Tribunal held that M/s SHPL is entitled to interest on the refund, aligning with the Tribunal's order in M/s Interscape's case.

3. Appropriation of Rs. 11 lakhs against redemption fine:
The Rs. 11 lakhs paid by M/s SHPL was appropriated against the redemption fine for confiscated furniture. The Tribunal noted that the deposit was made during the investigation and was appropriated in the Order-in-Original, which was later set aside. Therefore, the appropriation against the redemption fine was deemed incorrect, and M/s SHPL became eligible for a refund.

4. Applicability of Tribunal's order in M/s Interscape's case to M/s SHPL:
The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order in M/s Interscape's case should not apply to M/s SHPL. However, the Tribunal found that the deposit made by M/s SHPL during the investigation should be treated similarly to a pre-deposit, as in M/s Interscape's case. The Tribunal cited multiple decisions supporting the notion that deposits during investigations are to be refunded upon the success of litigation.

5. Timeliness and procedural correctness of the refund claim:
The Revenue contended that M/s SHPL's refund claim was premature and that no pre-deposit was made by M/s SHPL. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was valid as the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the refund became due. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the refund with interest, noting that the procedural correctness was maintained as per the relevant circulars and legal precedents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and ruled in favor of M/s SHPL, granting the refund of Rs. 11 lakhs along with interest. The Tribunal concluded that the deposit made during the investigation should be treated as a pre-deposit, and upon the setting aside of the Order-in-Original, the refund with interest was warranted.

← Previous Next →