9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he excise duties paid thereon in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.2 In year 2014, investigation proceedings were initiated by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (in short 'DGCEI') with respect to the clearance of capital goods as waste and scrap by the appellant without payment/reversal of the amount during the periods from 01.03.2011 to 16.03.2012 and 27.09.2013 to 31.03.2015. During the course of the investigation, the appellant, without admitting liability, deposited an amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/- under protest. Further, the dispute was decided by the Division Bench of the CESTAT, New Delhi in favour of the appellant vide Final Order No. 50932/2022 dated 26.09.2022. 2.3 Pursuant to the said final order, the appellant had filed a refund application dated 29.09.2022 before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division East-I, Gurugram for claiming the refund of Rs.12,00,00,000/- deposited during the DGCEI investigation conducted against them in year 2014 alongwith applicable interest. The learned Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 02.01.2023 partially sanctioned the refund of Rs.11,35,26,369/- to the appellant after adjusting the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that where an amount was due to an assessee from the department, such amount is required to be refunded to the assessee with applicable interest for the entire period from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that this interest is in the form of compensation to the assessee for retaining the deposited amounts for extended periods of time without the authority of law, causing financial difficulties for the assessee, the liability to pay such interest arises from the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, he also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula vs. Riba Textiles Limited - 2022 (62) G.S.T.L. 136 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra) has upheld the order of the Tribunal granting interest on refund to the assessee computable from the date of payment till the date of refund. The review application filed against this judgment has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited (supra), the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana has already held that the rate of interest applicable in such cases is @12% per annum. He further submits that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Riba Textiles Limited (supra) has been followed by this Tribunal in the cases of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited vs. CGST, Chandigarh - 2023 (4) TMI 504 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH and Impressive Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CGST, Chandigarh - 2023 (4) TMI 433 CESTAT CHANDIGARH. Besides this, he also relies on the following case-laws to support his argument that the interest computed should be @12% per annum: CCE, Hyderabad vs. ITC Ltd. - 2004 (12) TMI 90 - Supreme Court Nelco Limited vs. Union of India - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.) Sony Picture Network India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI - 2017 (5) TMI 864 - Kerala High Court Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd - 2010 (10) TMI 151 - Gujrat High Court Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2010 (9) TMI 400 - CESTAT Ahmedabad Vikas Sabharwal Proprietor vs. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 404 (Kar.) CCE, Mumbai-I vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. - 2016 (335) ELT 163 (Tri. - Mumbai) Central Arecanut and Cocoa Marketing and Processing Co Operative Ltd vs. CCE & ST, Mysore - 2017 (3) TMI 931 - CESTAT BANGALORE He also prays that the refund of Rs.64,73,631/- retained by the tax authorities should be refunded to the appellant along with interest @12% per annum computed from the date of deposit till the date of refund. 5.1 On the other hand, the learned Special Counsel for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. Further, he submits that as regards the prayer of the appellant that they are entitled to refund of the amount deposited during investigation, the relevant provisions to deal with the issue are Section 35F and Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which are applicable to service tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submits that Section 35F specifies the mandatory payment of pre-deposit amount of 7.5% or 10% as a pre-condition for hearing an appeal, it does not elaborate whether the amount paid by the appellant during investigation can be considered as pre-deposit or not. On this point, a clarification is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of payment till the date of refund @12% per annum. It is pertinent to note that the review application filed by the Revenue against this judgment has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as reported at 2022 (5) TMI 1531 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. 7.2 We also note that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sunrise Immigration Consultants Private Limited vs. Union of India - (supra), after relying upon the decision in the case of Riba Textiles Limited (supra), has re-affirmed that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount deposited during investigation along with interest @12% computable from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of refund. 8.1 Regarding the rate at which the interest is to be computed, we find that the Tribunal as well as various Courts in catena of decisions (as cited above in para 4.3) have consistently held that interest is payable from the date of deposit till the date of refund @12% per annum. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indore Treasure Market City Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein the Tribunal after considering the various decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld apply in the facts of the present case. Again, since there is some basis to the award of interest by the Appellate Tribunal, the same does not call for any interdiction." 8.3 We also find that in the case of Raghuveer Metal Industries Ltd (supra), the Tribunal has held that the appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of refund thereof. 8.4 In view of the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to receive interest on the amount deposited during investigation from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of its refund at the rate of 12% per annum. 9.1 Regarding the adjustment of the amount Rs.64,73,631/- from the total refund sanctioned to the appellant, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error because the said demand was not confirmed by the Appellate Authority rather the said demand was set aside by the Appellate Authority in the case of Bharti Infratel Ltd. We also find that in the case of Kisan Irrigations & Infrastructure Ltd (supra), the Tribunal has held that adjustment of refund against a confirmed demand during the pendency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
