9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX, NOIDA (VICE-VERSA) [ 2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] . Even the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [ 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] has dealt with the issue deciding the same in favour of the assessee holding the assessee entitled for the interest @12 % for the refund of the amount which were deposited not as the amount of duty. The issue is no more res integra that any deposits made if have not been confirmed as duty the time bar of Section 11B of Central Excise Act cannot be invoked. It stands clear that the amount in question was not the amount of duty after the Tribunal set aside the duty liability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 31.12.19 10.10.19 Rs. 19,26,012/- on 25.01.2012 21.01.2020 21.02.20 11.05.20 10.05.21 E/5093 0/2021 24.12. 2014 27.01. 2020 10.10.19 Rs. 22,82,105 on 25.01.2012 Rs. 9,094 on 10.09.2012 04.02.2020 17.03.20 18.05.20 03.06.21 2. The facts relevant for the purpose are as follows:- i. That the appellants herein are engaged in manufacture of MS Ingots and MS Bars. The department observed that appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following case laws: 1. Sandvik Asia Ltd. [2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC)]; 2. Parle Agro (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner, CGST [2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-ALL]; 3. M/s Batra Henlay Cables v. Commissioner of CGST [2022-TIOL-69-CESTAT-DEL]; 4. Pr. COMMR. of CGST, New Delhi vs Emmar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 311 (Tri. - Del.)]; 5. Kesar Enterprises v. Commissioner CGST [2022-TIOL-01-CESTAT-ALL]; and 6. Jindal Spinning Mills Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi [2022-TIOL-176-CESTAT-DEL]. 5. Per contra learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) has appreciated all the submissions made by the appellant. After meticulously observing the provisions of Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussed the legal provision as follows: 26. Section 11A of the Excise Act relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid. It provides that in such cases, the central excise officer shall serve a notice on the person chargeable with duty requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount of duty alongwith interest payable thereon under section 11AA. 27. Section 11AA deals with interest on delayed payment of duty. It provides that the person, who is liable to pay duty, shall, in addition to the duty, be liable to pay interest at the rate specified in sub-section (2). The interest rate that has been specified in sub-section (2) is not below 10% and not exceeding 36% per annum as the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. 32. Section 11DD of the Excise Act deals with interest on the amount collected in excess of the duty. It provides that where an amount has been collected in excess of the duty from the buyer of such goods, the person who is liable to pay such amount shall, in addition to the amount, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below ten per cent., and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. 8. The Tribunal in the case of Parle Agro vs CCE NOIDA reported as [2018 (360) E.L.T. 1005 (Tri. - All.)] has held that 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more res integra that any deposits made if have not been confirmed as duty the time bar of Section 11B of Central Excise Act cannot be invoked. It stands clear that the amount in question was not the amount of duty after the Tribunal set aside the duty liability of the appellant. Hence, it is held that section 11 B is not applicable to such deposits. Commissioner (Appeals) is held to have wrongly invoked the said provisions. In terms of section 35 of Central Excise Act, the amount of refund being in the nature of deposit only appellant is held entitled for the interest on the said amount that too @ 12 % from the date of deposit till the date of realisation thereof. In view of the entire above discussions, the orders under challenge are here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
