9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evident that in case the appeal is finally decided in favour of the appellant hen the amount, so deposited under Section 35 F shall be refunded along with interest for period after expiry of period of three months from the date of communication of order of Appellate Authority at the rates specified as per section 11BB. In case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made.' Interpreting the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme various benches of tribunal have concluded in the favour of the grant of interest form the date of deposit and at the rate of 12% (though not provided by the statute or any Notification issued in terms of Section 11BB or Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944). However it may also be noted that these decisions were in respect of the deposits made when there was no sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only) to M/s Shri Rathi Steels Limited, Plot 'E' Phase-III, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Masuri-Gulawathi Road, Tehnil-Hapur, District Hpur, Uttar Pradesh, in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the sanctioned amount is to be transferred directly to their Bank Account in terms of Board Circular No. 1013/1/2016-CX dated 12.01.2016 and Trade Notice No.02/TECH/HPR/2016 dated 11.02.2016." 2.6 Through the above order Original Authority has allowed the refund of the amount without any interest. Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order. 2.7 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Bipin Garg learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- * the pre-deposit whether made before 2014 or thereafter, the appellants are entitled for interest from the date of deposit till granted. In fact the appellants are entitled for the interest @12% on the amount refunded i.e. Rs.50,00,000 from the date of deposit till granted. * the appellants are relyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue" "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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014. Explanation.--……… 35FF. Interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under Section 35F.-- Where an amount deposited by the appellant under Section 35F is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appellate authority, there shall be paid to the appellant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such amount from the date of payment of the amount till, the date of refund of such amount: Provided that the amount deposited under Section 35F, prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 35FF as it stood before the commencement of the said Act. 4.5 It is observed that while making the above substitution w.e.f. 06.08.2014 specifically by proviso to Section 35F and Section 35FF, it has been stated that the amount deposited under Section 35F of the Act, prior to commencement of Finance Act, 2014, will be governed by provision of Section 35F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of payment of amount till, the date of refund of such amount : Provided that the amount deposited under section 129E, prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of section 129EE as it stood before the commencement of the said Act." 8. An analysis of the aforesaid statutory morphism would show while the original provision stipulated interest would be payable at a rate specified in Section 27A after expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority, till the date of refund of such amount, the substituted provision provided for interest at a notified rate not below 5 per cent and not exceeding 36 per cent from the date of payment till the date of refund of such amount. Moreover, the proviso to the substituted provision clarified that all amounts deposited under Section 129E prior to the commencement of the substituted provision on and from 2014 would be guided by pre-amended Section 129EE. Or in other words, interest on pre-deposits which were made prior to 2014 would be at a rate specified in Section 129EE (prior to its substitution) and for a period commencing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 4 vide Para 33 : "A close reading of Section 11BB, which now governs the question relating to payment of interest on belated payment of interest, makes it clear that relevant date for the purpose of determining the liability to pay interest is not the determination under subsection (2) of Section 11B to refund the amount to the applicant and not to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund but the relevant date is to be determined with reference to date of application laying claim to refund. The non-payment of refund to the applicant claimant within three months from the date of such application or in the case governed by proviso to Section 11BB, non-payment within three months from the date of the commencement of Section 11BB brings in the starting point of liability to pay interest, notwithstanding the date on which decision has been rendered by the competent authority as to whether the amount is to be transferred to Welfare Fund or to be paid to the applicant needs no interference." The special leave petition is dismissed. No costs." 14. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (supra), relied upon by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Such a finding has also been clearly recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 31-1-2017, which order has attained finality. 33. There is no provision in the Excise Act, which deals with refund of revenue deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded. 34. To be able to have some guidance regarding the rate of interest in 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 Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 66/2003-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 12th September, 2003 [GSR (E), dated the 12th September, 2003], except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby fixes the rate of interest at eighteen per cent per annum for the purpose of the said section. This notification 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preting the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme various benches of tribunal have concluded in the favour of the grant of interest form the date of deposit and at the rate of 12% (though not provided by the statute or any Notification issued in terms of Section 11BB or Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944). However it may also be noted that these decisions were in respect of the deposits made when there was no separate provision for refund of deposits along with interest. In that situation courts and tribunals were allowing interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund and were also prescribing the rate of interest as deemed fit. The said decisions are clearly contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court referred earlier. 4.9 The decision in case of Sandvik Asia has been considered 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 approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay simple interest on 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 amount of refund. On the aggregate amount of refund, the writ-applicants are entitled to 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the GSTR-03. The respondents shall undertake this exercise at the earliest and calculate the requisite amount toward the 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 form the date of receipt of the writ of this order." 7. The first case 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore we deal with the question, it must be stated that initially a bench of two Judges of this Court in Union of India and Others v. Orient Enterprises and Another [(1998) 3 SCC 501 = 1998 (99) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.)] had observed that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed solely for relief for payment of interest on delayed refund would not be maintainable. For facility, the relevant portion from the said decision is quoted here : "6. In Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740 : 56 ITR 84 : 16 STC 398] this Court has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said orders, has directed the refund of the amount so collected with interest. The direction for payment of interest in these cases was by way of consequential relief along with the main relief of setting aside the order imposing the tax or duty. Those cases stand on a different footing and have no application to the present case. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is dismissed. No order as to costs." 15. However, subsequently another Bench of two Judges of this Court in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. in more or less identical circumstances settled the issue and found the Writ Petition to be maintainable. The observations of this Court were : "7. The High 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Taxes [(1988) 1 SCC 401 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 99 (2)] (v) It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund of the money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power can be exercised sparingly depending on facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, where 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 give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing sub-questions : (a) is the interest payable only on Rs. 10,000/- and if so, whether the interest is payable till the date of first/original assessment or till the date of the revised assessment? (b) is the interest payable on Rs. 15,000/- and if payable, is it payable only till the date of first/original assessment or till the date of the revised assessment? After considering various decisions on the point, the conclusion drawn by the Court was : "The argument, which was upheld in some of the cases now under appeal, is that it will be inequitable if the assessee does not get interest on the amount of advance tax paid, when the amount paid in advance is refunded pursuant to an appellate order. This is not a question of equity. There 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 ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . One is where a statute specifies or regulates the interest. In that event, interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute. The second is where a statute or contract dealing with the acquisition specifically bars or prohibits payment of interest on the compensation amount. In that event, interest will not be awarded. Where the statute is silent about interest, and there is no express bar about payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or enhanced compensation for acquisition would require award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds." This Court, dealing with an acquisition under the Defence of India Act, 1962 (which did not contain any provision either requiring or prohibiting payment 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 20 years would be appropriate and payable on equitable principles." (C) In Sandvik Asia Ltd., a Bench of two Judges of this Court was called upon to consider whether the inordinate delay of about 12 to 17 years in making a refund would entitle grant of interest. In the facts of that case, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 31-3-1986 to 27-3-1998 was granted. Even while doing so this Court observed : "48. There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statutory 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." (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this Court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding a certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same, not an interest on interest." 17. Since reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., we must note that what arose for consideration in that case, was the constitutional validity of the Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996, and Section 110 of the Karnataka Lands Reforms Act, 1996 and certain 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 vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. It is precisely for this reason that paragraph 9 of the decision in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. accepted the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the respondents and confined the rate of interest to the prescription made in the statute. The award of interest at a rate in excess of what was prescribed by the statute was only for a period beyond 20 years where the matter was not strictly covered by the statute and as such it would be in the realm of discretion of the Court. It must also be noted here that the inordinate delay of up to 17 years in making refunds was a special circumstance 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 Chemic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich stood crystallized. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. That appeal came to be allowed in toto by the Appellate Authority in terms of its judgment dated 31 December 2008. The Department is stated to have preferred an appeal against that decision before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal5 which ultimately came to be dismissed on 27 September 2016. Admittedly, while an interim order operated on that appeal, the same came to be discharged once the appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT. 6. The petitioner thereafter and more particularly on 14 November 2016 filed a formal application for refund which had accrued in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 31 December 2008 and consequent to the challenge thereto being negatived by the CESTAT in terms of its judgment of 27 September 2016. 21. For the purposes of evaluating the submissions aforenoted, it would be apposite to notice the statutory provisions which apply. The issue of refund and the interest payable in case of delay is governed by Sections 11B and 11BB. The said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow: - "Section 11-B. Claim for refund of [duty an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant under Section 35-F is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appellate authority, there shall be paid to the appellant interest at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such amount from the date of payment of the amount till, the date of refund of such amount: Provided that the amount deposited under Section 35-F, prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Section 35-FF as it stood before the commencement of the said Act." 23. The Court, at the outset notes, that Section 11B(1) in clear and unambiguous terms contemplates the making of an application for refund being made by any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest paid on such duty. The claim of refund insofar as the petitioner is concerned arose in the backdrop of the order in original coming to be set aside in appeal. The petitioner appears to have made an application for refund ultimately and only after the departmental appeal before the CESTAT came to be dismissed. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 35FF is an embodiment of the manifest obligation of the respondents to refund the pre-deposit consequent to an order passed by the Appellate Authority notwithstanding an application having not been made by the depositor. 28. The distinction between Sections 11B and 35FF is also evident when one bears in mind the language employed in the latter and which stipulates that interest would commence from the date when the amount deposited by the appellant under Section 35F is required to be refunded consequent to an order passed by the Appellate Authority. Section 35FF thus indicates that interest would commence from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority as distinct from the making of an application which is prescribed to be the starting point insofar as Section 11BB of the 1944 Act is concerned. 29. Regard must also be had to the fact that in the case of refund of duty, it is also incumbent upon the assessee to declare and establish that the burden of tax has not been passed on. Absent that declaration, any refund that may be made would itself amount to the assessee being unjustly enriched. The making of an application and a declaration to the aforesaid effect is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents had also failed to draw the attention of the Court to any statutory provision which governed the issue of refund. The aforesaid decision is thus clearly distinguishable especially when undisputedly, in the present matters the issue of refund is governed by the provisions of Sections 11B and 11BB." 4.11 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has in case of Shreejikrupa Spinners Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (340) E.L.T. 126 (Guj.)] held as follows: "4. On a plain reading of the above order, it is evident that the amount deposited in terms of the said order was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Special Civil Application No. 3041/2013 has been decided by this Court by a judgment and order dated 26th September, 2014 [2016 (332) E.L.T. 601 (Guj.)] whereby the Court has allowed the petition by inter alia setting aside the demand raised against the petitioner in respect of the outstanding dues of GSL (India) Limited. Having regard to the fact that the amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the above order dated 6th December, 2013 was towards the demand raised from the petitioner in respect of the outstanding dues of GSL (India) Limited, as a necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
