TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Additional related issues include the interpretation of section 129-EE of the Customs Act concerning payment of interest on pre-deposits, the applicability of relevant Supreme Court precedents on interest payable on penalty refunds, and the responsibility for bearing interest liability arising from delayed refunds.
Regarding the primary issue of entitlement to interest on pre-deposit refunds, the Tribunal examined the statutory framework under sections 129-E and 129-EE of the Customs Act. Section 129-E mandates pre-deposit of a specified amount to file an appeal against an order imposing penalty or confiscation. Section 129-EE, introduced by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 effective from 01.10.2014, provides for payment of interest on the amount deposited under section 129-E if refunded after disposal of the appeal. The proviso to section 129-EE clarifies that pre-deposits made before 01.10.2014 are governed by the earlier version of the section, which directs payment of interest after three months from communication of the appellate order until payment is made.
The Tribunal reasoned that the statutory language of section 129-EE uses the phrase "amount deposited under section 129-E" without distinction between duty, penalty, or other components. Hence, pre-deposit of penalty alone falls within the scope of section 129-EE, entitling the appellant to interest on the refunded amount after the prescribed period.
In support, the Tribunal analyzed the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata v. Coronation Spinning India, which was relied upon by the Department and the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny interest. The Supreme Court had held that interest is not payable on penalty refunds under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which corresponds to sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal distinguished that case on facts and law, noting that the Supreme Court's ruling dealt with refund of duty, interest, and penalty deposited on protest under section 11B, whereas the present case concerns a statutory pre-deposit under section 129-E, which is neither duty nor penalty but a separate statutory mechanism. The Tribunal further referred to the CBEC Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014, which clarifies that pre-deposit for filing an appeal is not a payment of duty and is not governed by section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The circular mandates refund of pre-deposit with interest within 15 days of receipt of refund application unless a stay is granted by the appellate authority.
The Tribunal concluded that the Department is legally obligated to pay interest on the refunded pre-deposit amount after expiry of three months from the date of the appellate order (28.02.2006), as per the provisions of section 129-EE applicable before the 2014 amendment.
Regarding the question of who bears the interest liability, the Tribunal relied on CBEC Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX dated 08.12.2004, which provides that any delay beyond three months in refunding amounts will be viewed adversely, and the interest liability arising due to such delay may be recovered from the concerned defaulting officers. The Tribunal emphasized that while the Department must pay the interest to the appellant, it may recover the amount from the responsible officials who caused the delay.
The Tribunal addressed the competing arguments by the appellant's counsel, who stressed the statutory mandate for interest payment on refund of pre-deposit, and the Department's reliance on the Supreme Court decision denying interest on penalty refunds. The Tribunal reconciled these positions by distinguishing the legal and factual contexts, highlighting the specific statutory scheme governing pre-deposits under section 129-E and interest under section 129-EE, and the clarifications issued by the CBEC circulars.
In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to interest on the refunded pre-deposit amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from three months after the appellate order dated 28.02.2006 until payment, as per the provisions of section 129-EE of the Customs Act, 1962, prior to the 2014 amendment. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying interest and directed the Department to pay the interest within two months of the order. It also directed that the Department may recover the interest amount from the defaulting officers responsible for the delay.
Significant holdings include the following verbatim legal reasoning:
"What is required to be noted here is that without reference to the terms duty, interest, penalty etc., the statute had used the word 'amount deposited u/s. 129-E' that would naturally cover also the penalty aspect. Therefore, there is no denying of the fact that if pre-deposit is made while challenging the penalty alone, interest is payable."
"The said paragraph reads as follows; Delay beyond this period of three months in such cases will be viewed adversely and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the concerned defaulting officers. All concerned are requested to note that default will entail an interest liability, if such liability accrues by reason of any orders of the CESTAT/Court, such orders will have to be complied with and it may be recoverable from the concerned officers."
Core principles established are that pre-deposit under section 129-E, even if relating solely to penalty, attracts statutory interest on refund under section 129-EE, and that the Department's delay in refunding such amounts with interest may result in disciplinary action and recovery of interest from responsible officials. The Tribunal's final determination mandates payment of interest on pre-deposit refunds made before the 2014 amendment, overruling reliance on Supreme Court decisions concerning penalty refunds under different statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
