Refund interest and recovery interest depend on statutory conditions; absence of notice defeated the credit-based demand, while delayed refund attracted interest.

Interest on ineligible modvat credit could not be demanded in a refund proceeding without a show cause notice or other statutory trigger for recovery, because the liability to interest arises only on satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. Interest was therefore not sustainable on the credit appropriated against the refund claim. Separately, where a refund claim remains unpaid beyond three months, statutory refund interest becomes payable from the expiry of that period, and any alleged delay in furnishing particulars does not by itself defeat that entitlement unless the claim is rejected or adjudicated on that basis. The department's challenge failed, and the refund-related reliefs were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest was payable on the ineligible modvat credit appropriated against the refund claim in the absence of a show cause notice; (ii) Whether interest was payable on the sanctioned refund amount under the statutory refund-interest provision from the expiry of three months after filing of the refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether interest was payable on the ineligible modvat credit appropriated against the refund claim in the absence of a show cause notice.

Analysis: The demand for interest was raised in the course of processing the refund claim, but no show cause notice had been issued proposing recovery of the credit or interest thereon. The amount treated as ineligible credit was appropriated in the refund order itself. On the applicable rule, liability to interest arises only after the prescribed period following a demand notice, and that condition was not satisfied. In a refund proceeding, the department could not sustain an independent interest demand in the absence of a proper notice and statutory trigger.

Conclusion: The demand of interest on the ineligible modvat credit was not sustainable and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the sanctioned refund amount under the statutory refund-interest provision from the expiry of three months after filing of the refund claim.

Analysis: The refund claim had been filed and the sanctioned amount was eventually released after the statutory period. The alleged delay in furnishing particulars by the assessee did not displace the operation of the refund-interest provision. If the claim was thought to be delayed or defective, the appropriate course was rejection or adjudication on that basis, not denial of statutory interest once the refund remained unpaid beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the expiry of three months after filing the refund claim, and the order granting such interest was affirmed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The department's appeal failed on both issues, and the refund-related reliefs granted by the lower appellate authority were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory interest on recovery or refund can be enforced only when the conditions prescribed by the governing provision are satisfied, and a refund claim cannot be used to impose an independent interest demand absent the requisite notice and statutory foundation.

---