2005 (2) TMI 636 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals Denied: Interest Disallowed on Deposit Pending Appeal

PROTECH APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COCHIN

The Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing interest on the deposit made pending appeal. The decision was ... Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit Issues:Disallowed interest on deposit pending appeal.Analysis:The appellants challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing interest on the deposit made pending appeal. The Commissioner held that the relief sought could not be extended, citing Section 11B and 11BB of the Act. Referring to the Suvidhe Ltd. case, it was established that a deposit under Section 35F is not a duty payment but a pre-deposit for appeal rights, thus not falling under Section 11B. The Killick Caribonium case further clarified that Section 11B does not apply to Section 35F deposits as they are security deposits, not duties. As Section 11BB does not cover refund of pre-deposits, interest provisions do not apply. Despite references to judgments granting interest in similar cases, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, as no arguments were presented to counter the reasoning provided.Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing interest on the deposit made pending appeal. The decision was based on the understanding that Section 11B and 11BB do not apply to deposits under Section 35F, as they are considered security deposits, not duty payments. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, as no arguments were presented to challenge the established legal reasoning.