9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filing refund application. Thus the Appellant is entitled for interest on the aforesaid sanctioned refund amount after 04.09.2018 as the instant refund claim was filed on 05.06.2018. The Tribunal's Final Order No.72936/2018 dated 27.12.2018 in the case of CCE & ST, Ghaziabad Versus M/s Balaji Wire Pvt Ltd.) cited by the Id. Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal bearing no. 1625/CE/NOIDA/APPL/NOI/2018-19 dated 31.11.2018 filed by M/s Jindal Pipes Ltd., Jindal Nagar, Delhi Hapur Road, Hapur is allowed to the extent of interest on the sanctioned refund claim after 04.09.2018.." 2.1 Appellant had filed a refund claim with the jurisdictional authorities on 05.06.2018, claiming refund of amounts deposited by them as per the direction of the officers of the revenue who visited their premises on 21.09.2010 & 22.09.2010 and detected certain shortages in stock. 2.2 A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant in respect of the shortages detected. It was adjudicated confirming the demand and also imposed penalties on the Appellant. 2.3 Tribunal vide its Final Order No.71603-71604/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der protest on the shortage of the inputs in HR Coils and Zinc Ingots. A show Cause notice dated 16.09.2011 were issued to the appellant and Sri D.K.Upadhyay, G.M (Commercial). Subsequently, the Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Meerut-II vide order dated 28.12.2012 confirmed the demand of 8,01,378/- alongwith equal penalty and also imposed the penalty upon Shri D.K.Upadhyay and specifically appropriated the aforesaid amount already paid by them. I find when the Addl. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 8,01,738/- against them and appropriated the same as payment towards their assessed duty liability, the Rs. 8,01,738 /- earlier paid by them becomes the payment of duty by the appellant towards assessed duty liability and cleared part liabilities to be an amount paid on ad hoc basis. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (A) and who vide their OIA dated 22.04.2013 upheld the OIO and also reduced the penalty on the appellant as well Shri D.K. Upadhyay. Further, the Commissioner (A)'s order dated 22.04.2013 was set aside by the Tribunal vide its Final Order NO.A/71603-71604/20i7-SM (BR) dated 22.11.2017, than the instant refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder granting the refund. Explanation: If the delay in granting the refund within the period of three months aforesaid is attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable." 16. Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deals with the situation in hand, the same is extracted below:- "Section 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 Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) under the first proviso to section 35F, is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appellate authority and such amount is not 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simply refuse to pay to the assesses amounts of interest lawfully and admittedly due to that as has happened in the instant case. It is a case of the appellant as set out above in the instant case for the assessment year 1978-79, it has been deprived of an amount of Rs.40 lakhs for no fault of its own and exclusively because of the admittedly unlawful actions of the Income Tax Department for periods ranging up to 17 years without any compensation whatsoever from the Department. Such actions and consequences, in our opinion, seriously affected the administration of justice and the rule of law. COMPENSATION: 46. The word 'Compensation' has been defined in P. RamanathaAiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition 2005 page 918 as follows: "An act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years in question in the four appeals are the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Already the matter was pending for more than two decades. We, therefore, direct the respondents herein to pay the interest on Rs.40,84,906 (rounded of to Rs.40,84,900) simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 31.03.1986 to 27.03.1998 within one month from today failing which the Department shall pay the penal interest @ 15% p.a. for the above said period." 18. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has answered the issue holding that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date its refund. Therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled to claim the interest on delayed refund from the date of deposit till its realization. 19. Further, the interest on the refund shall be payable @ 12% per annum as held 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 Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irections of the department. In September 2004, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had dismissed the SCA filed by the appellants against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit. This SCA was dismissed in September 2004 and SLP was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in October 2004. In July 2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered that if the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal is deposited, the appeals before the Tribunal has to be restored and decided on merits. In these circumstances, the amount deposited by the appellant is to be treated as pre-deposit since the matter had not attained finality during the relevant period. Therefore, refund is to be treated as refund of pre-deposit made when the appeal was pending. There is no dispute that the amounts deposited is duty but this is not the issue which 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case revenue deposit has to be refunded, the aid of the interest provisions under Section 11AA (which deals with interest on delayed payment of duty), Section 11BB (which deals with interest on delayed refunds under Section 11B(2) and Section 11DD (which deals with interest on the amount collected in excess of the duty) can be taken. 35. The Notification issued under Section 11AA of the Excise Act provides interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum. The notification is reproduced below : Notification No. 15/2016-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2016 Notification Under Section 11AA Rate of interest on delayed payment of duty (w.e.f. 1-4-2016). - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 5/2011-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 1st March, 2011 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i), vide, number GSR 136(E), dated the 1st March, 2011, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby fixes the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2011." 39. In this connection reference can also made to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pace Marketing Specialities and Ebiz.Com Private Limited, wherein after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the High Court granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum in matters relating to refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication. 40. In Riba Textiles, the Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 12% on refund of amount deposited during investigation and at the time of entertaining the stay application. 41. In view for the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the rate of interest varies from 6% to 18% in the aforesaid Notifications issued under Sections 11AA, 11BB, 11DD and 11AB of the Excise Act, the grant of interest @ 12% per annum seems to be appropriate." B. Continental Engines Pvt Ltd. [2022 (382) ELT 522 (T-Del)] "7. A perusal makes it clear that the amount of pre-deposit is to be refunded along with the interest which was not below 5% and shall not exceed 36%. No concept of any time-limit is being mentioned in the said provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (60) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.)] and following has been observed: "3.1 Details of 15 (Fifteen) refunds made to said writ petitioner showed that there was delay ranging from 94 to 290 days. 3.2 In the circumstances it was prayed inter alia :- "(a) to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ(s) for directions is the Respondents for providing appropriate compensation as well as interest, for delay in the granting of refund;" 4. The first case arises out of Special Civil Application No. 18591 of 2018 filed by M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. submitting that said Writ Petitioner was entitled on the basis of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act for compensation in receipt of delayed payment as detailed in Annexure D of the petition, which in turn dealt with 12 refunds with delay ranging between 94 to 290 days. The special civil application had thus prayed for appropriate compensation. 5. In both the petitions it was submitted that inaction leading to inordinate delay in granting refunds was per se arbitrary and that the inordinate delay impacted the working c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se was then disposed of on the same day with the following observations :- "4. For the reasons assigned in the Special Civil Application No. 15925 of 2018, decided on 10-7-2019, this writ application is allowed to the extent that the writ applicants are entitled to the interest for the delayed payment at the rate of 9% per annum. The authority concerned shall look into the chart provided by the writ applicants, which is at Page 30, Annexure D to the writ application and calculate the aggregate refund, the writ applicants are entitled to 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the GSTR-38. The respondents shall undertake this exercise at the earliest and calculate the requisite amount towards interest. Let this exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The requisite amount towards the interest shall be paid to the writ applicants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order." 8. The appellant being aggrieved, preferred Review Petitions in both the cases. It was submitted inter alia : "4. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court has di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. This Court has made a distinction between a direction for refund given by way of consequential order in a case where the legality of the assessment is questioned and a case where the petition is only for the purpose of seeking refund. It has been observed : "We do not consider it proper to extend the principle justifying the consequential order directing the refund of amount illegally realised, when the order under which the amounts had been collected has been set aside, to cases in which only orders for the refund of money are sought. The parties had the right to question the illegal assessment orders on the ground of their illegality or unconstitutionality and, therefore, could take action under Article 226 for the protection of their fundamental right, and the courts, on setting aside the assessment orders, exercised their jurisdiction in proper circumstances to order the consequential relief for the refund of the tax illegally realised. We do not find any good reason to extend this principle and, therefore, hold that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Suganmal v. State of M.P. [AIR 1965 SC 1740] has held that the prayer in the writ petition being one for payment of interest, it should be considered to be a writ petition filed to enforce a money claim and therefore, not maintainable. The observations in Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740] related to a claim for refund of tax and have to be understood with reference to the nature of the claim made therein. The decision in Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740] has been explained and distinguished in several subsequent cases, including in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 549] and ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] The legal position becomes clear when the decision in Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740] is read with the other decisions of this Court on the issue, referred to below : (i) Normally, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the facts are not in dispute, where the collection of money was without the authority of law and there was no case of undue enrichment, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens. But even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a given case. (Vide U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 549]) (vi) Where the lis has a public law character, or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access to justice by way of a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be denied. (Vide Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242) We are therefore of the view that reliance upon Suganmal was misplaced to hold that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable." 16. We, therefore, proceed to consider the merits. Turning to the basic question it must be noted that in the following cases, this Court dealt with the question as to payment of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no right to get interest on refund except as provided by the statute. The interest on excess amount of advance tax under Section 214 is not paid from the date of payment of the tax. Nor is it paid till the date of refund. It is paid only upto the date of the regular assessment. No interest is at all paid on excess amount of tax collected by deduction at source. Before introduction of Section 244(1A) the assessee was not entitled to get any interest from the date of payment of tax upto the date of the order as a result of which excess realisation of tax became refundable. Interest under Section 243 or Section 244 was payable only when the refund was not made within the stipulated period upto the date of refund. But, if the assessment order was reduced in appeal, no interest was payable from the date of payment of tax pursuant to the assessment order to the date of the appellate order. Therefore, interpretation of Section 214 or any other section of the Act should not be made on the assumption that interest has to be paid whenever an amount which has been retained by the tax authority in exercise of statutory power becomes refundable as a result of any subsequent proceeding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of interest), upheld the award of interest at 6% per annum. 11. Section 24 of the Act requires the Collector, after possession of surplus land was taken over under Section 21(4) of the Act, to cause public notice requiring persons interested to lodge their claims. Section 25 of the Act provides for determination of compensation and apportionment thereof. Section 26 deals with mode of payment of amount of compensation and the same is extracted below : "26. Mode of payment of amount of compensation. - (1) The amount of compensation may, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), be payable in transferable bonds carrying interest at three per cent per annum. (2) The bonds shall be - (a) of the following denominations, namely - Rs. 50; Rs. 100; Rs. 200; Rs. 500; Rs. 1000; Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000; and (b) of two classes - one being repayable during a period of twenty years from the date of issue by equated annual instalment of principal and interest, and the other being redeemable at par at the end of a period of twenty years from the date of issue. It shall be at the option of the person receiving compensation to choose payment in one or other class of bonds, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation." (D) In Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, the correctness of the decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. came up for consideration before a Bench of three Judges of this Court, and the matter was considered thus : "3. In order to answer the aforesaid issue before us, we have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court in Sandvik case [Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 2 SCC 508] and the order of reference. We have also considered the submissions made by the parties to the lis. 4. We would first throw light on the reasoning and the decision of this Court on the core issue in Sandvik case [Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 2 SCC 508]. The only issue formulated by this Court for its consideration and decision was whether an assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Income Tax Department for the delay in paying interest on the refunded amount admittedly due to the assessee. This Court in the facts of the said case had noticed that there was delay of various periods, ranging from 12 to 17 years, in such payment by the Revenue. This Court had further referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain notifications issued by the State Government. The questions which arose for consideration were set out in paragraph 25 of the decision as under :- "Whether the relevant provisions violated the basic structure of the Constitution in so far as they conferred power on the executive government for withdrawal of exception without hearing and without reasons and whether the provisions of the Acquisition Act were protected by Article 31(A) of the Constitution and whether they were violative of Article 300(A) of the Constitution?" After dealing with these questions, the reference was answered thus : We, therefore, answer the reference as follows : (a) Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act and the Notification dated 8-3-1994 are valid, and there is no excessive delegation of legislative power on the State Government. (b) Non-laying of the Notification dated 8-3-1994 under Section 140 of the Land Reforms Act before the State Legislature is a curable defect and it will not affect the validity of the notification or action taken thereunder. (c) The Acquisition Act is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution after having obtained the assent of the President and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstance when this Court was persuaded to accept grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in Sandvik Asia Ltd. Even while doing so, the observations made by this Court in Paragraph 48 of the decision are quite clear that "the award of interest in refund and amount must be as per the statutory provisions of law and whenever a specific provision has been made under the statute such provision has to govern the field." The subsequent decision of the Bench of three Judges in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals noticed that the grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent was in the facts of the case in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 19. Since the delay in the instant case was in the region of 94 to 290 days and not so inordinate as was the case in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the matter has to be seen purely in the light of the concerned statutory provisions. In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 per cent. The award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56. The High Court was in error in awarding interest at the rate exceeding 6 per cent in the instant matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any court or in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder or in any law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section". The language could not have been more specific and emphatic. The exclusivity of the provision relating to refund is not only express and unambiguous but is in addition to the general bar arising from the fact that the Act creates new rights and liabilities and also provides forums and procedures for ascertaining and adjudicating those rights and liabilities and all other incidental and ancillary matters, as will be pointed out presently. This is a bar upon a bar - an aspect emphasised in Para 14, and has to be respected so long as it stands. The validity of these provisions has never been seriously doubted. Even though in certain writ petitions now before us, validity of the 1991 (Amendment) Act including the amended Section 11B is questioned, no specific reasons have been assigned why a provision of the nature of sub-section (3) of Section 11B (amended) is unconstitutional. Applying the propositions enu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 27 of the Contract Act, whether before or after 1991 amendment - as interpreted by us herein - make every refund claim subject to proof of not passing-on the burden of duty to others. Even if a suit is filed, the very same condition operates. Similarly, the High Court while examining its jurisdiction under Article 226 - and this Court while acting under Article 32 - would insist upon the said condition being satisfied before ordering refund. Unless the claimant for refund establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another, he would not be entitled to refund, whatever be the proceedings and whichever be the forum. Section 11B/Section 27 are constitutionally valid, as explained by us hereinbefore. They have to be applied and followed implicitly wherever they are applicable. 99. The discussion in the judgment yields the following propositions. We may forewarn that these propositions are set out merely for the sake of convenient reference and are not supposed to be exhaustive. In case of any doubt or ambiguity in these propositions, reference must be had to the discussion and propositions in the body of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act or the Customs Act, as the case may be. It is necessary to emphasise in this behalf that Act provides a complete mechanism for correcting any errors whether of fact or law and that not only an appeal is provided to a Tribunal - which is not a departmental organ - but to this Court, which is a civil court." 4.7 Even if the amount is considered to be refund of deposit then also the same has to be refunded under section 11B as the said section has provided for the refund of deposit lying in account current. The said provision as enshrined in Section 11B is reproduced below: 11B. Claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty.- (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty may make an application for refund of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise]] before the expiry of two years from the relevant datein such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Section 11BB as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy, referred in the impugned order. There has been exception carved out only for determination of relevant date for determining the period for which interest is to be paid in respect of deposit made as per Section 35F for filing the appeal before an appellate authority. Section 35FF provides that interest would be paid from the date of deposit made under Section 35F. 4.10 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in case of Goldy Engineering Works [Order dated 14.07.2023 in WP (C) 4332/2022] observed as follows: "3. For the sake of brevity, the Court deems it apposite to notice the facts as they obtain in the writ petition filed by M/s Goldy Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr.3 On 27 July 2006, a Show Cause Notice4 is stated to have been issued to the petitioner, its proprietor, one M/S Aay Kay Engineering Works and its proprietor, in respect of certain goods which had been seized. The aforesaid SCN was followed by another SCN dated 29 January 2007 in terms of which the Department raised a demand for additional duty as well as proposing penal action again against the noticees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l that may be preferred. Those two provisions are extracted hereinbelow: - "Section 35-F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal.-The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal- (i) under sub-section (1) of Section 35, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officer of Central Excise lower in rank than the [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise]; (ii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 35-B, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against; (iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 35-B, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date". We do so observe in light of the indubitable principle that an order of stay that may operate in an appeal does not efface the demand or the obligation of refund that may have sprung into existence. It merely places the enforcement of the order appealed against in abeyance. The order of stay would, in any case, be deemed to have never existed once the appeal comes to be dismissed. 25. We further note that the subject of interest on delayed refund which is governed by Section 11BB itself prescribes the starting point for payment of interest on delayed refunds to be the date when an application under Section 11B(1) is received. On a conjoint reading of Sections 11B and 11BB of the 1944 Act, therefore, we come to the irresistible conclusion that interest on delayed refund is clearly dependent upon the making of a formal application as stipulated by Section 11B of the 1944 Act. 26. We also find merit in the contention canvassed by Ms. Narain who had submitted that a refund of duty and interest paid thereon is liable to be viewed as distinct from a pre-deposit that may be made in compliance with Section 35F of the 1944 Act. The Circular of the Board too strikes an iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we deem it pertinent to enter the following prefatory observations. A levy of interest on refund must undoubtedly follow where it is found that the amount has been unjustifiably retained or remitted with undue delay. The respondents cannot be permitted to retain moneys which are otherwise not due or are otherwise liable to be returned. The solitary question which stands raised in these matters is the date from which that interest would flow. In Shri Jagdamba Polymers, the High Court on facts had found that the refund was inordinately delayed even though a claim for the same had been promptly lodged. This is clearly evident from Para 7 of the report. The said decision is thus clearly not an authority for the proposition that a refund must automatically follow de hors the requirements of Sections 11B and 11BB. 31. In eBIZ, the Allahabad High Court was not dealing with a claim for refund of "duty" but an amount deposited in the course of investigation. The High Court further went on to hold that even in the absence of a statutory provision if it be found that tax or duty had been wrongly collected, it would be liable to be refunded. There cannot be a dispute with regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
