Refund interest rate cannot be sought through implementation proceedings when the earlier order left the rate open.

Where an earlier tribunal order had decided only the date from which refund interest was payable and had left the rate open, a subsequent miscellaneous application could not be used to seek quantification at 12% per annum. The Assistant Commissioner, while implementing that direction, passed a separate appealable order and quantified delayed refund interest at 6% per annum under Notification No. 75/2003-N.T. dated 12-9-03. As the rate of interest was not covered by the tribunal's earlier direction, the applications were not maintainable as mere implementation proceedings and were rejected; any challenge to the separate order had to be taken before the appropriate appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking implementation of the earlier tribunal order could be entertained for a direction to quantify interest at 12% per annum, when the earlier order had decided only the date from which interest was payable and had not ined the rate of interest.

Analysis: The earlier order had conclusively decided only the starting point for payment of interest and had left the rate of interest open. The Assistant Commissioner, while implementing that order, passed a detailed appealable order and quantified interest from the date directed by the Tribunal. His determination that delayed refund interest was payable at 6% per annum was based on Notification No. 75/2003-N.T. dated 12-9-03. Since the question of rate of interest was not part of the Tribunal's earlier direction, the applications could not be treated as applications for mere implementation of that order.

Conclusion: The applications for implementation were not maintainable to seek interest at 12% per annum and were rejected. Any grievance against the Assistant Commissioner's separate order had to be pursued before the appropriate appellate authority.

---