9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therwise, they would have suffered the dismissal of appeal. The amount in the form of pre-deposit is also towards the liability of tax to avail the remedy of statutory appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 35F before substitution by the Act 25 of 2014 (w.e.f. 06.08.2014) required the assessee to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied for challenging the impugned order and the appellant was required to make an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied. The appeal under the provisions of Section 35F is a statutory appeal and it is a settled principle of law that a statutory appeal is maintainable subject to the compliance of the conditions laid down in the statue providing the remedy of appeal. Section 35F, in unequivocal terms says person desirous of appealing the order demanding the duty is required to deposit the duty/ penalty demanded, pending the appeal. in terms thereof, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit part of the duty amount involved and appellant paid the same in compliance thereof. The interest on delayed refund has been held to be payable to the assessee from the date of deposit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19.12.2013. Subsequently, the appeal filed was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2017, setting aside the impugned order. The appeal having been allowed on merits, the appellant became entitled to the amount deposited in terms of the Stay Order. An application was filed on 15.02.2023 claiming refund of the pre-deposit amount with interest. Show cause notice dated 25.04.2023 was issued proposing to reject the refund application on the ground of being time barred as per Section 11B and non-submission of the re-conciliation statement of the service tax paid on "Renting of Immovable Property Services". The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for refund having been filed beyond the period of one year from the date of deposit. On appeal, the Order-in-Original was affirmed. Hence, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard Ms. Sukriti Das and Ms. Kajal Dhiman, Advocates for the appellant and Shri Kuldeep Rawat, Authorised Representative for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount deposited by them in terms of the Interim Order passed by the Tribunal was for the purpose of availing the remedy of statutory appeal in terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remit the requisite amount along with interest within a period of 6 weeks. The order passed is simple and clear that the appellant was required to make the pre-deposit for consideration or appeal and also to avail the benefit of the Stay Order as otherwise, they would have suffered the dismissal of appeal. The amount in the form of pre-deposit is also towards the liability of tax to avail the remedy of statutory appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 35F before substitution by the Act 25 of 2014 (w.e.f. 06.08.2014) required the assessee to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied for challenging the impugned order and the appellant was required to make an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied. The provisions of Section 35 F as it stood prior to 6.8.2014 reads as under:- "35F: Deposit, pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied. --- Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Jaipur, [2024 (12) TMI 940 - CESTAT, New Delhi] this Tribunal relied on the other latest decision in Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan [2023 (2) TMI 10 CESTAT New Delhi] the relevant para is quoted herein below:- "11. The issue whether the appellant is eligible to claim the refund and whether the same is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment in terms of section 11B is no longer res integra, having been decided in series of decisions. We would refer to the latest decision passed by this Tribunal in Chambal Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur18 where the Bench had dealt with similar contentions as raised by the appellant herein referring to the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Pricol Ltd which was subsequently followed by the Allahabad High Court in Ebiz.com vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax and ors. and subsequently in Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Vs. Eveready India Ltd. In all these decisions, the main principle laid down is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withheld by the Department for an inordinate long period. The Act itself recognised in principle, the liability of the Department to pay interest where the amount deposited by the assessee is unduly retained. The consistent practice of this Tribunal has been to grant interest at the rate of 12% in matters relating to refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication. The Tribunal in Parle Agro Pvt Ltd observing that there is no provision in the Excise Act, which deals with the refund of revenue deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed when revenue deposit is required to be refunded, considered the various notifications issued under the provisions of Section 11 AA, 11 BB and 11 DD of the Act providing the interest rate from 6% to 15% and accordingly increased the rate of interest from 6% to 12% per annum. Following the said decision, the grant of interest at 12% per annum on the refund amount is appropriate. 10. In view of the settled principles of law, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The department is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellant on 19.12.2013 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
