9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months from the filing of application of refund. In the present case the refund was sanctioned within 3 months. From Clause (ec) sub-clause of (B) of sub-Section 5(4), for the purpose of relevant date it is the order by which the amount became refundable must be considered. In the present case it is the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the refund became payable to the appellant. Therefore, prior to the date of order of Commissioner (Appeals) there was no cause for granting any refund. Moreover, even the appellant also not sought for any refund prior to the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The interest is payable only after 3 months from the date of application of refund - In the present case admittedly the refund was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant s Chartered Accountant M/s Rushi Upadhyay Company submitted a letter on 28 August, 2019 wherein the personal hearing was waived. Therefore, the appeal is taken for a dismissal. 2. Shri Dinesh Prithiani, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that since the appellant s refund claim was sanctioned within 3 months from the date of filing of refund application no interest is payable. As regard the submission of the appellant that amount deposited is in the form of pre-deposit, therefore, they are entitled for interest, he submits that the similar issue has been considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of appellate authority, Appellate tribunal or any court the date of such judgment, decree order or direction. From the above sub clause for the purpose of relevant date it is the order by which the amount became refundable must be considered. In the present case it is the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the refund became payable to the appellant. Therefore, prior to the date of order of Commissioner (Appeals) there was no cause for granting any refund. Moreover, even the appellant also not sought for any refund prior to the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). This issue has also been considered by Hon ble High Court as submitted by Shri Dinesh Prithiani Learned AR particularly in Para 14 which is reproduced as below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be considered to be akin to or in the nature of pre-deposit as contemplated under Section 35-F of the Act; and secondly there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had paid the amount in question under protest, and hence the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 118 of the Act which provides that the limitation of one year shall not apply where duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has been paid under protest would not be applicable. Once it is held that the payments made by the petitioner were in the nature of excise duty and were not deposits, the provisions of Section 118 of the Act would be attracted; and having regard to the fact that the amounts in question had not been deposited under protest, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
