9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deposit made by the appellant was totally unauthorized because the CESTAT has given him complete waiver - Further it has been consistently held by the Tribunal that if the amount is not voluntarily paid by the assessee and later on the case is decided in favour of the assessee, then he is entitled to interest from the date of deposit made by the assessee. The assessee is entitled to interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20807/2019-SM - Final Order No. 21012/2019 - Dated:- 18-11-2019 - HON'BLE SHRI. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri. J. Bhanumurthy, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. C.V. Savitha, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demanding an amount of ₹ 36,81,089/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eighty Nine only) to be paid/reversed by them. The demand in the show-cause notice was confirmed earlier Order-in-Original No. 29/2010 dated 30.04.2010. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein vide Order-in-Appeal No. 188/2011 CE dated 20.06.2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal along with the stay application and the Tribunal vide Order dated 17/05/2012 ordered for stay of recovery of adjudged dues. Thereafter, on 16/12/2012 the jurisdictional Superintendent of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant is entitled to interest on the refund as the amounts paid by the appellant are not voluntary and is on account of recovery proceedings initiated by the Department during the operation of Stay Order. He further submitted that the Apex Court has categorically held that the taxes which are collected either in excess or without authority of law, then the Revenue must compensate the assessee with interest even in the absence of statutory provision. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied upon the following decisions: a. Suvidhe Ltd. V. UOI 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) b. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Raigad Vs. Fincord Chemicals (P) Ltd. 2015 (319) E.L.T. 616 (S.C) c. Nestle India Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise 2003 (154) E.L.T. 567 (Kar.) d. Voltas Ltd. V. Union of India Ors. 1999 (112) E.L.T. 34 (Del.) e. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Bangalore 2009 (240) E.L.T. 124 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the cases relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in the present case because in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeal of the appellant. After the decision of the Tribunal, appellant approached the Department seeking refund of the amount along with interest from the date of recovery of the said amount but the Department vide order dated 31/05/2018 sanctioned the refund but rejected the interest claim and the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the interest after the expiry of three months from the date of filing the application i.e. from the date the appellant filed an application dated 10/10/2017. Further I find that in the present case the amount was recovered by the Department from the appellant in spite of the extension of Stay Order issued by CESTAT which was subsequently extended also vide order dated 27/12/2012. The Department in fact com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment on account of the wrongful denial of the exemption notification. In all fairness, the appellant is entitled for interest on the amount, which has been withheld by the Department unlawfully from the date of deposit. Several case-laws relied on by the learned Advocate are applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, we order payment of interest at appropriate rate to the appellant. The rate of interest will be the rate applicable to normal refunds, which are paid belatedly and the adjudicating authority should adopt the rates notified by the Government of India for delayed refunds. Thus, we allow the misc. application in the above manner. 6.1. Further the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
