9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 195 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - Excess interest deposited interest calculated at higher rate Held that - excess interest paid was an arithmetic error and need to be rectified. Revenue not allowed to retain the excess amount appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund of excess interest paid due to wrong calculation. Analysis: The appellant defaulted in paying duty for the 2nd fortnight of July 2002 but later deposited the duty along with interest. However, they miscalculated the interest at 24% instead of the applicable 15%, resulting in an excess payment of ?14,178. The refund claim for the excess amount was rejected by lower authorities citing no provision for refund of excess interest paid, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had indeed calculated the interest incorrectly, leading to the excess payment. The refund claim was filed within the stipulated one-year period. The Revenue rejected the claim citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which governs duty refunds only, not interest refunds. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's stance, highlighting that while there might not be specific provisions for refunding excess interest, there is no explicit prohibition either. The excess payment arose from a mere arithmetical error, with the appellant depositing ?37,808 instead of the correct ?23,630. It was deemed unjust for the Revenue to retain the surplus on the basis of a technicality. Referring to a previous order where excess interest was refunded, the Tribunal emphasized that various decisions and precedents support refunding excess interest collected without legal authority. Furthermore, multiple cases were cited where Tribunals ruled in favor of refunding excess interest amounts. Based on the above analysis and precedents, the Tribunal found no grounds to deny the appellant's refund claim for the excess interest paid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.
|
