TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies interest on pre-deposit, cites statutory limits</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application seeking interest on pre-deposit amount, emphasizing adherence to statutory limitations and legal provisions, ... Rectification of Mistake - Condonation of delay of 124 days in filing ROM Application – Held that:- Foolowing the decision taken in COLLECTOR OF C.E., CHANDIGARH Versus DOABA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS [1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] there is no scope for condonation of delay in filing of ROM application under Section 35C(2) when there is no provision for such condonation and the Tribunal being a creation of statute, cannot travel beyond the confines of the statute. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC are not applicable for condonation of delay in filing of appeals or rectification application under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944.The delay in filing of ROM application, therefore, cannot be condoned and the application has to be rejected as time barred. Interest on Refund of Pre deposit - Held that:- As from ROM it is seen that assessee seek interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of pre-deposit i.e. 8-8-2008 till the date of refund of pre-deposit on 18-10-2011. But there is no provision in Central Excise Act, 1944 for interest on pre-deposit from the date of pre-deposit. Section 35FF permits interest only from the date of expiry of three months from the date of communication of the Appellant order to the Department till the date of refund of pre-deposit. A debatable point of law can not be a “mistake apparent from the record” as held in case of CCE, Calcutta v. ASCU Ltd. (2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - a mistake apparent from record’ is that which is an obvious and patent mistake and is not something which has to be established by long drawn process of reasoning on which there may be conceivably two opinions - ROM application and condonation of delay in filing of ROM application dismissed. Issues:1. Duty demand on pre-fabricated structural components2. Appeal against duty demand order3. Refund of pre-deposit with interest4. Condonation of delay in filing ROM application5. Interest on pre-deposit amountAnalysis:Issue 1: Duty demand on pre-fabricated structural componentsThe case involved a dispute regarding the duty demand on pre-fabricated structural components used in the construction of viaducts. The Commissioner imposed duty, penalties, and ordered confiscation, which led to appeals filed by the Appellant to the Tribunal.Issue 2: Appeal against duty demand orderThe Tribunal, in Final Order dated 14-3-2011, set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeals based on a notification issued by the Government. Subsequently, the Appellant sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount, which was partially refunded, leading to further legal actions.Issue 3: Refund of pre-deposit with interestThe Appellant sought refund of the pre-deposit amount with interest at 12% p.a. The absence of a specific direction for interest in the Tribunal's Final Order led to a request for rectification, which was initially pursued through a writ petition in the High Court.Issue 4: Condonation of delay in filing ROM applicationThe Appellant filed a ROM application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking directions for interest on the pre-deposit amount. The Department opposed the application citing the limitation period and lack of provision for condonation of delay.Issue 5: Interest on pre-deposit amountThe Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, ruled that there was no provision for condonation of delay in filing ROM applications under Section 35C(2). The Tribunal emphasized the strict adherence to limitation periods and legal provisions, dismissing the ROM application and the plea for interest on the pre-deposit amount from the date of pre-deposit.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and legal provisions, thereby denying the request for interest on the pre-deposit amount.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
