2021 (7) TMI 1216 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal dismissed as premature on interest for sanctioned refund. Follow up with department for further proceedings.

M/s. Ananda Books Versus Commissioner of CGST

M/s. Ananda Books Versus Commissioner of CGST - 2022 (58) G. S. T. L. 369 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Interest on late payment of sanctioned refund.Analysis:1. The appellant's counsel raised the issue of interest on late payment of a sanctioned refund amount of &8377; 16,79,045 for specific periods. The original refund claim was rejected but later allowed on appeal. However, the refund amount has not been credited to the appellant's account yet, and there is no mention of interest in the order under challenge, which is required as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The Departmental Representative pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the appeal with all consequential relief to the appellant. However, a deficiency memo issued during the original adjudication process did not include specific findings about the interest component.3. Upon reviewing the Order-in-Original, it was noted that while certain deficiencies were mentioned, subsequent paragraphs indicated that the appellant had addressed these deficiencies, and the refund rejection was primarily due to non-compliance with a notification. The Appellate Authority had already dealt with this issue in their order, which was being challenged in the current appeal.4. It was clarified that the refund claim had already been allowed with consequential relief by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the issue of interest was not explicitly addressed in the Commissioner's order, it was deemed to be covered under the consequential relief granted. The appellant was advised to pursue implementation of the impugned order through the appropriate departmental application.5. Given the circumstances and the actions taken by the appellant, the Tribunal found no cause of action to challenge the Commissioner's order at that stage. The appellant was instructed to continue pursuing the application filed with the Department for the implementation of the order.6. Consequently, the appeal was considered premature and disposed of, granting the appellant the liberty to approach the Department for further proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to follow up on the application filed with the Department in relation to the sanctioned refund and interest payment issue.