9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as justified in granting interest at the rate of 10%. If the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise is empowered to grant interest, it goes without saying that such power was enure in favour of the appellate authority namely, the Commissioner of Central Excise as well as the Tribunal which will test the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner and also this Court, in exercise of power under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, there is sufficient power vested with the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case to grant interest. However, in this case the facts are exceptional and peculiar. More particularly, because of the earlier round of litigation before this Court - such right to claim interest not only emanates from the statutory provision of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act but also pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent/assessee before this Court. Quantum of interest at the rate of 10% - HELD THAT:- The total interest which was sanctioned and refunded to the respondent/assessee is Rs. 59,85,338/-. If that be so, then the present appeal will be hit by the monetary limit fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, is perverse and exceeded its jurisdiction as it failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 14th August, 2019, has made it clear that no such interest is payable to the writ petitioner/the respondent herein on the entire amount as deposited by the respondent herein for the said period from the date of deposit with the Government till the said amount was transferred to the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court? 3. We have heard Mr. K.K. Maiti, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.K. Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4. The present litigation has had a chequered history which commenced with the issuance of the show cause notice dated 26th September, 2011 demanding service tax from the respondent/assessee in terms of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and interest under Section 75 of the said Act and proposing to levy penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act. The said show cause notice culminated in an order of adjudication dated 12th November, 2012 by which the demand made by the show cause notice was confirmed along with direction to pay interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness of the order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata dated 12th November, 2012 by filing an appeal before the learned Tribunal and that the learned Writ Court committed mistake in entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly, the respondent/assessee was directed to prefer appeal as against the adjudication order and a time frame was also fixed for preferring such appeal with a further direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal. At the time when the appeal was entertained by the Division Bench, by order dated 16th February, 2017 while staying the portion of the judgment and order by which refund was granted, directed the Department to deposit the amount with the Registrar General of this Court within a time frame with a further direction to keep the amount invested in a short term interest bearing fixed deposit account in any nationalised bank. The Division Bench also directed the respondent/assessee to effect the mandatory pre-deposit before the Tribunal and upon effecting such deposit such deposit, direction was issued to the Registrar General of this Court to refund the amount which was deposited by the respondent/assessee pursuant to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the Writ Petition filed by the Commissioner. The said Writ Petition filed by the appellant was allowed by a learned Judge of the High Court on June 30, 2016 and the amount deposited was directed to be refunded with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The Department however, filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court against the order of the learned Judge and by an interim order dated February 16, 2017, the Division Bench directed that the amount of Rs. 20,16,65,000/- (1,51,66,500+50,00,000/-) to be deposited by the Department with the Registrar General of the High Court, which amount was to be invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit. The Division Bench, by judgment and order dated August 14, 2019, allowed the appeal filed by the Department and directed that the amount deposited by the Department with the Registrar General of the High Court shall be returned to the appellant with accrued interest as on the date of refund. 81. The contention of the appellant is that no interest has been paid to the appellant from the date of deposit of the amount of Rs. 1,51,66,500/- on February 26, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, had placed before this Court judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. sharma v. Union of India reported in (1976) 3 SCC 574; Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318; Devang Rasiklal Vora v. Union of India reported in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in and M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1978) 3 SCC 544. These judgments have been pressed into service to show that unless the delay is unreasonable, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be held to be non est in law. 15. In our considered view, there may not be any necessity for us to examine the effect of the CESTAT Procedure dated 17th July 2009 qua the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 14th December, 2020 as the period during which the orders were reserved by the Tribunal would fall during which lockdown was imposed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also extended the period of limitation under various statutes. Therefore, on the said ground, the order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be held to be non est in law. That apart, no such substantial question of law has been suggested by the revenue in this appeal. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late for the day for the appellant/department to contend that no interest is payable. 16. That apart, the learned writ Court while allowing the writ petition by order dated 30th June, 2016 had quantified the quantum of interest at the rate of 10%. The factual matrix has been thoroughly examined by the Tribunal and interest has been directed to be paid only from the date on which the amount was recovered till it was deposited with the Registrar General of this Court and, therefore, we find that there can be no error in directing such payment of interest. That apart we note that the total interest which was sanctioned and refunded to the respondent/assessee is Rs. 59,85,338/-. If that be so, then the present appeal will be hit by the monetary limit fixed by the CBIC in its Circular dated 22nd August, 2019 which fixed the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for the revenue to pursue appeals before this Court against the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, on that score also we are of the view that the revenue is liable to be non suited. That apart there is nothing on record to indicate that the case on hand would fall within any one of the exception which have been curved out in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
