Tribunal Orders Interest Payment on Refund Claims, Emphasizes Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the lower authorities to pay interest to the appellant after 3 months from the date of filing the refund claims until the actual refund was paid. The decision was based on legal precedents and the law established by the Apex Court, emphasizing the authorities' obligation to adhere to Supreme Court interpretations to prevent unnecessary litigation and harassment of taxpayers.

---

---

Issues:
Payment of interest on delayed refunds.

Analysis:
The appeal revolved around the issue of payment of interest to the appellant on delayed refunds. The appellant imported goods under two bill of entries and faced a differential duty demand, which was eventually recovered by the Department. The appellant filed refund claims as the duty was paid under protest due to final assessment disputes. Despite multiple reminders, the refund claims were not processed promptly. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, which was later set aside and remanded back for reconsideration. The appellant sought interest on the refunded amount, but the adjudicating authority declined, citing the introduction of interest on provisional assessments only from 13.07.2006 onwards, while the bills of entries were provisionally assessed in the year 1985-86. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, stating that interest on delayed refunds arises only after 3 months from the date of the CESTAT order dated 14.06.2012.

The appellant's counsel argued that the issue had been settled by various legal precedents, including decisions by the Apex Court and High Courts, which mandated the payment of interest to the assessee/importer after the expiry of 3 months from the date of filing the refund claim. The counsel highlighted specific cases such as Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd., and Union of India vs. Hamdard (WAKF) Laboratories, which supported the appellant's position. The counsel also referenced a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Kamakshi Tradexim (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India, which upheld the payment of interest as per the legal position established by the Apex Court.

The Tribunal, in its analysis, referred to the legal position established by the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., which clarified that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application. The Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities had erred in not disposing of the denovo adjudication and refund claims within the stipulated time frame. Citing the Kamakshi Tradexim (India) Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that the authorities must adhere to the legal interpretations set by the Supreme Court to avoid unnecessary litigation and undue harassment of taxpayers. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the lower authorities to pay interest to the appellant after 3 months from the date of filing the refund claims until the actual refund was paid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was unsustainable and ordering the payment of interest to the appellant in accordance with the legal precedents and the law laid down by the Apex Court.

---