Appeal dismissed due to lack of legal question, interest granted under Central Excise Act upheld

The appeal (CEXA/9/2021) was dismissed as there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration. The Tribunal's decision to grant interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act was upheld, considering the statutory provisions and earlier High Court orders. The Court noted that the total interest refunded was below the CBIC's monetary limit for appeals, leading to the appeal being non-suited. The connected application for stay (IA No. GA/1/2022) was also closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain grounds not part of the original adjudication.
2. Perversity and per incuriam nature of the Tribunal's order directing payment of interest.
3. Tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction by failing to appreciate the High Court's order regarding non-payment of interest.
4. Legality of the Tribunal's decision rendered after a significant delay.
5. Tribunal's power to grant interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
6. Applicability of CBIC's monetary limit for appeals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The revenue questioned whether the Tribunal was right in entertaining a ground related to the payment of interest on the entire amount deposited, which was not part of the original adjudication order. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is generally limited to examining the impugned Order-in-Original. However, the Tribunal considered the entire history of the case, including the writ petition and subsequent orders, to decide on the interest issue.

2. Perversity and Per Incuriam Nature of the Tribunal's Order:
The revenue argued that the Tribunal's order was perverse and per incuriam as it directed the payment of interest for the period from the date of deposit with the Government until the amount was transferred to the Registrar General of the High Court. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to interest on the amounts deposited with the Government from the date of deposit until the date of transfer to the Registrar General, as the appeal was allowed and the demand confirmed by the Commissioner was set aside.

3. Tribunal Exceeding its Jurisdiction:
The revenue contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not appreciating the High Court's order dated 14th August 2019, which stated that no interest was payable on the entire amount deposited. The Tribunal, however, noted that the proceedings before it were a continuation of the earlier litigation and that the right to claim interest emanated from both the statutory provision of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act and the orders passed by the High Court.

4. Legality of the Tribunal's Decision Rendered After Delay:
The revenue submitted that the Tribunal's decision rendered on 14th December 2020, after hearing arguments on 17th January 2020, was contrary to the CESTAT Procedure and should be held non est. The Court found no necessity to examine this issue in-depth, considering the lockdown period and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. Additionally, no substantial question of law on this issue was suggested by the revenue.

5. Tribunal's Power to Grant Interest:
The Court held that the Tribunal had sufficient power to grant interest, as even the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to grant interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's decision to grant interest was justified by the statutory provisions and the earlier orders of the High Court, which directed the payment of interest if the respondent/assessee succeeded in the writ petition.

6. Applicability of CBIC's Monetary Limit for Appeals:
The Court noted that the total interest sanctioned and refunded to the respondent/assessee was Rs. 59,85,338/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore fixed by the CBIC for pursuing appeals before the Court. Therefore, the appeal was non-suited based on the monetary limit, and there was nothing to indicate that the case fell within any exceptions outlined in the CBIC circular.

Conclusion:
The appeal (CEXA/9/2021) was dismissed as there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration. Consequently, the connected application for stay (IA No. GA/1/2022) was also closed.

---