9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken the shape of pre-deposit. This Tribunal only found that it s sufficient for the purpose of Section 35 of the Act. Further from the facts, it is clear from the order-in-original that the course of investigation, the cheques of ₹ 50 lakhs were tendered on 24.08.2010 was under pressure. The adjudicating authority has held that as they have not filed any complaint for signing the cheques under pressure, it means that they were willingly and concisely paid the amount against their liability. The amount paid during the course of investigation was under protest. The same view was taken by the various High Courts as in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE VERSUS M/S. PRICOL LTD., THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE SERVICE TAX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denying the benefit of SSI exemption notification and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated and the demand along with interest was confirmed. Penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal set aside the adjudication proceedings. Consequent to that, the appellants filed refund claim of the amount deposited during the investigation. The same was refunded, but no interest was paid to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are before me against the order of denial of interest from the date of deposit till the date of realization @12% p.a. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have deposited the duty under protest during the investigation and filed retracti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. opposed the contention of the appellants and submitted that the case laws relied upon by the appellants have been examined by the various Superior courts and the amount paid by the appellants during adjudication has been considered by this Tribunal by granting stay vide Stay Order No. SO/53989-54002/2014-EX[DB] dt. 18.11.2014 as pre-deposit. Therefore, the said amount is not an amount deposited under protest, it is only a pre-deposit and as per the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Hyderabad vs. ITC Ltd 2005 (179) ELT 15 (SC), interest on delayed refund is to be payable after three months from the date of the order of final adjudication by the higher court and the same view was taken by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the Stay Order dt. 18.11.2014. He further submitted that interest cannot be granted on the principle of equity and it is to be paid at the statutory rate of interest prescribed by the statue. He also rebutted the case laws relied upon by the appellants on various grounds. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions and case laws relied by both the sides in detail. 6. The main thrust of the ld. A.R. is that the amount deposited by the appellants during the course of investigation has taken the shape of pre-deposit as per the Stay Order dt. 18.11.2014. For better appreciation, para 2 of the said order is extracted herein below: 2 . It is seen that out of total duty demand of ₹ 2.61 crores confirmed against the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by the appellant does not mean that the amount was not paid under protest. Therefore, I hold that the amount paid during the course of investigation was under protest. The same view was taken by the various High Courts as in the case of Pricol Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon ble Madras High Court has held that there are also many judgments of various courts, which also reiterative the same principle in case any amount is depositing during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation, the said amount would be in nature of deposit under protest. Further, the same view was taken by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd (supra). Further, in the case of UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd (supra), the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Som Flavour Masala Pvt Ltd (supra). In the said case also this Tribunal observed that the amount paid during the course of investigation is still required adjudication of the show cause notice, therefore, the amount paid during adjudication cannot be attained finality and to be refunded to them. In that circumstance, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the interest is not payable, which is not in the case in hand. Further, in the case of LSE Securities Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the ld. A.R., it was not the claim of the appellant that the amount of interest is to be paid from the date of deposit during investigation till its realization; therefore, the said decision cannot be relied upon. Further, the facts of the case of Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
