9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 255 - AT - Service TaxInterest on refund - refund claim has been filed on 02.07.2021 consequent to the Order-in-Appeal dated 2.12.2020, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - Admittedly, there is no dispute that the appellant has filed refund claim initially on 17.07.2018 for Rs. 10,90,40,506/-. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating authority. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO. Treating the appellant s reminder letter date 02.07.2021 as a fresh Refund claim, Show Cause Notice was issued, and after due process the Adjudicating authority has sanctioned refund of Rs. 10,26,92,605/, wherein the request of interest was denied. There are no further appeal was filed against OIA dated 02.12.2020 by the Revenue. Therefore, it is not coming out anywhere that the Revenue was aggrieved by the OIA dated 02.12.2020. This being so, the Adjudicating authority was precluded from initiating any further proceedings so as to re-quantify the initial refund claim of Rs. 10,90,40,506/- whereas he has done so, solely on the basis that a fresh refund claim has been filed subsequent to the OIA dated 02.12.2020, which is factually incorrect. There are no legal sanctity in issuing the SCN on this ground. Their subsequent letter dated 02.07.2021 cannot be viewed as a fresh refund claim filed by them, rather it should be taken as a reminder letter for the refund claim which was filed on 17.07.2018 itself - the interest is required to be paid to the appellant by treating the date of filing of the Refund Claim as 17.07.2018 for calculation of the interest payable to the appellant. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a portion of the refund claim and the non-payment of interest by the Adjudicating Authority. Rejection of refund claim: The appellant initially filed a refund claim for Rs. 10,90,40,506/- on 17.07.2018, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal. However, a letter dated 2.7.2021 from the appellant seeking the refund of the originally rejected amount was treated as a fresh refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority, who sanctioned Rs. 10,26,92,605/- and rejected the balance claim. The Adjudicating Authority justified the rejection of the balance claim by stating that the refund claim was filed on 02.07.2021 and was sanctioned within 3 months, hence not requiring interest payment. The Tribunal found that the subsequent letter dated 02.07.2021 should be viewed as a reminder for the original refund claim filed on 17.07.2018, and not as a fresh claim. Non-payment of interest: The appellant sought interest on the refund, arguing that interest should be calculated from the original refund claim filing date of 17.07.2018 until the date the refund is granted. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their claim, emphasizing that interest should be paid from the date of the original refund claim filing. The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that interest should only be paid from the date of the Order passed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and case laws cited, held that interest is required to be paid to the appellant by treating the date of filing of the Refund Claim as 17.07.2018 for the calculation of interest payable. Separate Judgement: The Tribunal, in its judgment, referenced relevant legal precedents such as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Black Berry India Private Ltd., and CCE & C, Guntur Vs M/s Crane Betel Nut Powder Works to support its decision on the payment of interest. The Tribunal held that interest should be paid to the appellant from the original refund claim filing date of 17.07.2018, in line with the legal principles established in the cited cases. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
|
