9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.08.2014 has to be governed by pre-amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944 only. It is also that CESTAT, being a creature of the statute, cannot traverse beyond the provisions of the Statute. This view has been held in a catena of decisions viz., M/S. KALI AERATED WATER WORKS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.P.D. RAJENDRAN VERSUS THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NGO A COLONY, TIRUNELVELI [ 2022 (11) TMI 795 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]. This view is resonated in similar other decisions viz., M/S VEER OVERSEAS LTD. VERSUS CCE, PANCHKULA [ 2018 (4) TMI 910 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] , AJAY EXPORTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI [ 2015 (12) TMI 996 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX VISAKHAPATNAM-I, COMMISSIONERATE [ 2014 (11) TMI 747 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] . Accordingly, the provisions regarding payment of interest as provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall prevail, and the Tribunal cannot intervene in this regard. There are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority, till the date of refund of such amount." Undisputedly the impugned order has been passed after the amendment in Section 35FF, but at the same time, it is to be borne in mind that in terms of proviso below amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944, the payability of interest on pre-deposit made prior to 06.08.2014 shall be governed by pre-amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944. Neither amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944 nor any of the circulars relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority to decide the admissibility/quantum of interest is applicable on the issue in hand. In view of clear-cut statutory provisions cited above, I hold that the appeal is allowable. For such conclusion, I place reliance on CCE Vs. ITC Ltd. [2005 (179) ELT 15 (SC)] wherein the Supreme Court has ordered payment of interest on pre-deposit upon expiry of 3 months from the date of final disposal. This judgment has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs Tata SSL Ltd. [2007 (2018) ELT 493 (SC)]. Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX dated 08.12.2004 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) also provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut any authority of law and the same was withheld by the department wrongly. Consequently, the Appellant is entitled to interest on the said amount, which was withheld by the department illegally, from the date of deposit till date of refund. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments: (i) Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, Bangalore 2009 (240) ELT 124 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) CCE, Chennai Vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.) (iii) Omjai Bhavani Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner, Hyderabad 2009 (243) ELT 560 (Tri.-Bang.) 3.3 In view of the aforesaid submissions, Learned Counsel prayed that the instant appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that considering the fact that the deposits had been made in the year 2006 and 2013, the relevant provisions of law is Section 35 FF prior to the amendment dated 06.08.2014 which read as :- "35FF. Interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under the proviso to section 35F.-Where an amount deposited by the appellant in pursuance of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no dispute that the said impugned order was passed after the amendment in Section 35FF ibid, but it has to be borne in mind that in terms of proviso below amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944, the payment of interest on pre-deposit made prior to 06.08.2014 has to be governed by pre-amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944 only. In this context, we note that the Supreme Court in the case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd [2022 (60) GSTL 3(SC)] has held that once there are statutory provisions, no authority can grant interest beyond the statutory provisions. The Apex Court has followed the same analogy in other cases viz., M/s Gujarat Fluro Chemicals [2017 (51) STR 236(SC)] and in M/s VKC Footsteps(India) Pvt Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2023. The Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Cosmo Films Ltd [2023 (5) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] held as follows:- "72. This court recollects its recent decision, on the question of entitlement to refund, under the old tax regime, which was subsumed and resulted in some businesses being affected. Negativing the challenge to constitutionality of the provisions of GST, it was held, in Union of India (UOI) & Ors. v VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd 2021 (15) SCR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
