2017 (11) TMI 1323 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of interest - delayed payment of interest on the refund sanctioned - Held that - Any claim of amount from the Government can be disbursed only based on a statutory provision - in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals 2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court, examining similar provisions under the Income Tax, held that the payment ordered in Sandvik case 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME Court cannot be considered as interest on interest and it was ordered in special circumstances as a compensation for unduly long delay in sanctioning the refund / interest - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for interest on delayed payment of interest on the refund sanctioned.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the eligibility of the appellant for payment of interest on delayed payment of interest on the refund sanctioned to them. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of X-ray and cine films, had filed three refund claims following a Tribunal's order in their favor. The appellants claimed interest on delayed payment of the refund, citing financial loss due to the delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in their favor, allowing interest of ?2,03,59,647 for the delay in payment of refund up to 29.1.1998, which was later paid. Subsequently, the appellants claimed interest of ?1,65,52,315 towards delayed payment of interest, supported by a decision of the Apex Court in a related case. However, the claim was rejected, and the impugned order upheld the rejection.

The appellant's consultant argued that the delay in disbursement of their claim caused financial loss, warranting compensation through the claimed interest on delayed payment of interest. On the other hand, the respondent's representative opposed the appeal, asserting that there was no legal basis for such a claim and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support this position.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal considered the appellant's claim for interest on delayed payment of interest. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not cite any statutory provision under the Customs Act, 1962 to support their claim. It emphasized that any amount claimable from the Government must be based on a statutory provision, and the Tribunal cannot order general compensation without legal backing. Referring to a Supreme Court decision in a similar context, the Tribunal clarified that interest under the Customs Act, 1962 is the only amount payable to the appellant, and any additional sum not covered by statutory provisions cannot be granted. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the impugned order could not be interfered with based on the lack of legal grounds for the appellant's claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant was not eligible for interest on delayed payment of interest on the refund sanctioned, as the claim lacked statutory support under the Customs Act, 1962, and could not be considered as general compensation for financial loss.