9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly set aside - Appeal allowed. - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. C. Kamra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-001-APP-434-20-21 dated 16.07.2020 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Noida. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. I find that the dispute in the present appeal is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Marshall Foundry Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Faridabad others vide Final Order No.61058-61062/2019 dated 28.11.2019 and Corrigendum issued on 02.12.2019 relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:- 8. The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case M/s. Fujikawa Power and other vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I vide Final Order No.61041-61042/2019 dt. 26.11.2019 2019-VIL-810-CESTAT-CHD-CE wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- 14. I have gone through the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra), wherein the section 243 dealt with situation of interest on delayed refund. 15. For better app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of this Court. In the instant case, the appellant s money had been unjustifiably withheld by the Department for 17 years without any rhyme or reason. The interest was paid only at the instance and the intervention of this Court in Civil Appeal No.1887 of 1992 dated 30.04.1997. Interest on delayed payment of refund was not paid to the appellant on 27.03.1981 and 30.04.1986 due to the erroneous view that had been taken by the officials of the respondents. Interest on refund was granted to the appellant after a substantial lapse of time and hence it should be entitled to compensation for this period of delay. The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assesses, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principle amount of tax payable remain outstanding and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. Therefore, the Court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation. 48. This is the fit and proper case in which action should be initiated against all the officers concerned who were all in charge of this case at the appropriate and relevant point of time and because of whose inaction the appellant was made to suffer both financially and mentally, even though the amount was liable to be refunded in the year 1986 and even prior to. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Hon ble Minister for Finance for his perusal and further appropriate action against the erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. 49. By allowing this appeal, the Income-tax Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 dated 8-12-2004 on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months, it has to be construed that, the Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd., which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in the absence of any statutory provisions in the Act in question. Even though various other judgments of various High Courts and the various Tribunals was brought to my notice awarding 15% interest, in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. (supra) rate of interest is to be confined to 12%. I am also bound to follow the same. Therefore the interest that is liable to be paid by the respondents as per the directions of this Court in Ext. P12 judgment is fixed at 12% per annum. 15. Taking note of the compendio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
