9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the appellant vide Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2014, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2008 and 13.10.2009 with respect to the period 01.03.2006 to 31.03.2009. The said Order-in-Original was set aside vide the Final Order of this Tribunal bearing No. 51629/2020 dated 08.10.2020. Consequent to the said order that the appellant filed the refund application dated 17.05.2021 seeking refund for an amount of Rs. 62,12,944/- as was deposited vide the challans mentioned below:- Sl.No. Challan No. Date Amount (Rs.) 1. 4591 26.032015 46,39,253/- 2. 04585 26.03.2015 13,54,875/- 3. 04596 26.03.2015 2,18,816/- Total Rs. 62,12,944/- 2. The original adjudicating authority vide order dated 11.06.2021 had grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 311 (Tri.-Del.). Ld. Counsel further impressed upon that once the amount paid towards tax no longer remain amount towards tax liability of assessee, it acquire the character of revenue deposit. The decision in the case of C.C, Cochin v. Shree Simandar Enterprises [2012 (283) E.L.T. 369 (Kerala)] been relied upon. Finally it is submitted that once the demand is set aside the question of bifurcation of deposited amount as interest is no more relevant. Following decisions have been relied upon:- 1. Schenck Roteck India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cust., C.Ex & ST Noida [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 452 (Tri.-All.)] 2. G.Tech Computer Education Centre vs. C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Calicut [2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 178 (Tri-Bang)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-deposit, which is to be refunded to the assessee alongwith the interest as is available to such assessee. The issue stands clarified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. reported as 2006 (196) ELT 257 (S.C.) followed by this Tribunal in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST reported as 2021 TIOL 306 (CESTAT-Allahabad). The decision relied upon by the appellant i.e EMMAR MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also followed the said outcome. Since the entire amount has obtained the character of pre-deposit to my opinion it was highly unjustified on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to bifurcate the said amount into amount of pre-deposit and the amount of interest. 8. The issue with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above discussion, I hold that the amount of Rs. 62,12,944/- since was deposited during the investigation of such a proposal which stands finally set aside by this Tribunal, the entire deposited amount was liable to be refunded to the appellant, the entire amount being have acquired the character of pre-deposit as is required to be paid under section 35F of Central Excise Act alongwith interest. In view thereof it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly granted interest on the amount of Rs. 54,84,578/- however has wrongly rejected the balance claim by bifurcating the amount of Rs. 7,28,366/- as interest. The order to that extent is hereby set aside. Appellant is held entitled for the refund of Rs. 7,28,366/- alongwith the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
