9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Kerala High Court in the case of SONY PICTURES NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [ 2017 (5) TMI 864 - KERALA HIGH COURT] , wherein it was held that the appellants are entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date its refund @ 12% per annum. This appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, so far the interest claim has been disallowed. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant interest from the date of deposit (31.03.2006) till the date of grant of refund @12% p.a. Such interest on refund should be granted within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /55918/2013 before this Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal vide Stay Order No. SO/57016/2013-Ex[DB] dated 22.02.2013 directed the Appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 1,15,16,118within 6 weeks, and stayed the recovery of the balance interest and penalty amount. Compliance was directed to be reported on 4.6.2013. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid Stay order dated 22.2.2013 passed by Tribunal, the Appellant preferred Tax Case No. 22/2013 before the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The Hon ble High Court refused to modify the stay order of the Tribunal, however, three months further time was granted to deposit the amount. Accordingly, in compliance to the aforesaid direction of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court, the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the appellant for claim of interest from the date of pre-deposit till the date of refund of the principal amount. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is an admitted fact that the Appellant had pre-deposited an amount of ₹ 1,15,16,118 vide challan dated 27.7.2013in compliance to Stay Order dated 22.2.2013,which was subsequently upheld by Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court. Therefore, both the lower authorities have correctly recorded that such amounts were in the nature of pre-deposit, as a natural corollary, it never had the character of duty, as it was not payable at all by the Appellant, since the CESTAT vide Final Order dated 20.2.2017 held in favour of the Appellant. He further submits that the issue in dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Tax, Delhi,2021 (7) TMI 814 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Marshall Foundry Engg. Pvt. Ltd v. CGST, Faridabad, 2019 (11) TMI 1269 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH, r/w corrigendum 2.12.2019. 6. Therefore, in light of the settled proposition, he urges that the appellants are entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of deposit till its realization. Such interest may be held payable to the Appellant @12% as directed by the Courts in the above cases also. 7. He further urges that the impugned Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of denial of interest to the Appellant isnot sustainable, and the same may be allowed in full. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department reliesupon the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) was considered and ordered 12% interest, and further held that when the High Court directed the respondents to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular dated 8-12-2004 on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months, it has to be construed that, the Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd., which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in the absence of any statutory provisions in the Act in question. Even though various other judgments of various High Courts and the various Tribunals was brought to my notice awarding 15% interest, in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the amount deposited by the appellant is to be treated as pre-deposit since the matter had not attained finality during the relevant period. Therefore, refund is to be treated as refund of pre-deposit made when the appeal was pending. There is no dispute that the amounts deposited is duty but this is not the issue which has been taken into account while precedent decisions have allowed the interest at 12% on the refunds claimed in respect of pre deposit. I find that in the decisions cited by the learned advocate, interest at 12% has been allowed. Therefore, following the judicial discipline, I consider it appropriate that interest in this case also is to be allowed @ 12%. Accordingly, original adjudicating authority is directed to workou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
