9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Parle Agro Pvt Ltd [ 2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] . Appeal disposed off. - Excise Appeal No. 51267 of 2023 Excise Appeal No. 51751 of 2023 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50949-50950/2023 - Dated:- 20-7-2023 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Bipin Garg , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Gopi Raman , Authorized Representative for the Department ORDER ASHOK JINDAL Both appeals are having common issue, therefore both are decided by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that in 2001, two show cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing recovery of duty amount to Rs. 89,87,700/- Rs. 37,03,161/-, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed. The appellant challenge the said order before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 27.08.2003 allowed their appeals. In pursuant to the order of this Tribunal, the appellant took the Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,01,349/- and Rs. 10,14,569/- in their Cenvat credit account. In January 2004, against the said order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed an appeal before the Hon ble Apex Court and the Hon ble Apex Court vide final order dated 24.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te ends by order of this Tribunal in 2021 within three months of filing the refund claim therefore, question of paying interest does not arise. 5. Heard the parties considered submissions. 6. I find that in this case, it is not disputed that in 2016, the interest of for the intervening period, in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court passed in 2015 was deducted from the rebate claim sanctioned for export by the Adjudicating Authority which the appellant protested despite that the amount of rebate claim was reduced by deducting the interest amount. 7. Therefore, the question arises whether the rebate claim which was retained by the Adjudicating Authority illegally, in that circumstances, whether the appellant is entitled for interest for the intervening period or not? 8. The said issue has come up before this Tribunal in several cases. In the case of Riba Textile Ltd (supra) where this Tribunal observed as under: 6. On going through the decision cited by learned A.R. in the case of M/s Juhu Beach Resort Ltd (supra), I find that in the said case, the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. CIT, Pune 2007 (8) STR 193 (SC) and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refunded within three months from the date of communication of such order to the adjudicating authority, unless the operation of the order of the appellate authority is stayed by a superior court or tribunal, there shall be paid to the appellant interest at the rate specified in section 11BB after the expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority, till the date of refund of such amount. 17. On-going through the provisions of both Income Tax Act, 1961 and Central Excise Act, 1944, the interest on delayed refund is payable after expiry of 3 months from the date of granting refund or from the date of communication of order of the appellate authority, which are parimateria. Therefore, the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) is law of land, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is to be followed by me, wherein the Hon ble Apex has observed as under:- 45. The facts and the law referred to in paragraph (supra) would clearly go to show that the appellant was undisputably entitled to interest under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act as held by the various High Courts and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury; the consideration or price of a privilege purchased; some thing given or obtained as an equivalent; the rendering of an equivalent in value or amount; an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; the giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for the whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description; remuneration for loss of time, necessary expenditures, and for permanent disability if such be the result; remuneration for the injury directly and proximately caused by a breach of contract or duty; remuneration or wages given to an employee or officer. 47. There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statute provisions of law as it then stood and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. When a specific provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd.-2017 (353) ELT 179 (Ker.) wherein it has held as under:- 14. Now, the sole question remains to be considered is what is the nature of interest that the petitioner is entitled to get. As discussed above in the judgment Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC (supra), the Apex Court confined the interest to 12% and further held that any judgment/decision of any High Court taking contrary view, will be no longer good law. The said judgment is rendered, in my considered opinion under similar circumstances. So also in Kuil Fire Works Industries v. Collector of Central of Excise [1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the pre-deposit made by the assessee was directed to be returned to him with 12% interest. I have also come across the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-IV [2012 (285) E.L.T. 188 (Cal.), wherein the peremptory directions of the Apex Court in the judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich 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 workout the differential interest amount and make the payment to the appellants. 21. As the provisions of section 243 Income Tax Act, 1961 and section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944, are pari- materia. Therefore, following the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) and Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) I hold that the appellants are entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date its refund @ 12% per annum. 7. As this Tribunal has examined the issue in details in the case of M/s Marshall Foundry Engg. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to claim the interest on delay refund from the date of deposit till its realization. 9. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
