Pre-deposit made involuntarily during raid is refundable with interest under Section 11AB despite no statutory interest provision

The HC held that a pre-deposit made involuntarily during a raid, without a lawful liability, is refundable along with interest under Section 11AB, as the principles of unjust enrichment do not apply. The petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess service tax paid and interest, despite no specific statutory provision for interest on delayed refund, relying on precedents affirming that wrongful tax collection must be refunded with interest. The petition was allowed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount of 'Service Tax' and interest paid under coercion and subsequently appropriated by the Revenue.Whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to refund claims of amounts deposited as pre-deposit during investigation or adjudication proceedings.Whether interest is payable on delayed refund of pre-deposit or amounts paid under protest in excise/service tax matters.Whether the Revenue can retain amounts deposited voluntarily or under coercion without lawful authority pending appeal or adjudication.Whether the limitation period under Section 11B(1) applies to refund claims where duty was paid under protest or coercion.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount of 'Service Tax' and interest paid, as the amount was a pre-deposit made under protest during investigation and was subsequently appropriated without lawful authority; such retention is illegal and unauthorized.Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable to refund claims of duty or pre-deposits, and the limitation of one year does not apply where duty has been paid under protest or coercion.Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposits is payable at the rate of 12% per annum, as established by Supreme Court precedent and Board Circulars; interest is payable even if no specific statutory provision exists, based on equitable principles.The Revenue cannot refuse refund or retain amounts deposited under mistaken belief or coercion pending appeal, as the order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand is binding unless stayed by the Tribunal.The requirement to file refund application in prescribed form under Section 11B(3) is relaxed in cases of pre-deposit refunds, as per Board Circulars, and a simple letter along with relevant documents suffices.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which governs refund claims, including provisos excluding the limitation period for payments made under protest.Precedent from multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court was relied upon, establishing that amounts deposited during investigation or adjudication proceedings are "deposits under protest" or "pre-deposits," and principles of unjust enrichment do not apply.Supreme Court rulings, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C. Ltd., mandate payment of interest on delayed refunds of pre-deposits at 12% per annum, and Board Circulars clarify procedural relaxations and entitlement to interest.The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that no refund claim was pending due to non-filing of formal application, citing Board Circular No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A dated 2.1.2002 and subsequent clarifications allowing simpler procedures for refund claims of pre-deposits.The Court emphasized that retention of amounts without lawful authority violates fundamental principles, and the Revenue's appeal pending before the Tribunal does not preclude refund where the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand.Equitable principles and commercial fairness, supported by case law such as Surinder Singh v. Union of India and Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, were invoked to justify interest on wrongful retention of amounts by the Revenue.

---