TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal vide Stay Order dt.7.8.2009 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards demand of Rs. 64,73,939/- and Rs. 40 lakhs towards rebate and Rs. 20 lakhs towards penalty within eight weeks and to report compliance by 9.10.2009. 3. The appellant filed Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the said order of this Tribunal dt.7.8.2009. Hon'ble High Court vide order dt.11.11.2009 directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs in cash and furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs within four weeks. As the appellant failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, this Tribunal vide order dt.14.12.2009 dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dt.7.01.2010 directed the appellant to comply with the directions of the High Court within twelve weeks from the date of decision. The appellant deposited Rs. 40 lakhs on 20.3.2010 and furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs. This Tribunal recalled the order dismissing the appeal of the appellant and restored the appeal. 4. Thereafter on 30.11.2017, this Tribunal allowed the appeal of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of M/s. Cynamid India Ltd. is with regard to the Income-tax Act and as per Section 2(29BA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the term "manufacture" with its grammatical variation means a change in non-living physical object or article - (a) resulting in transportations of object or article or things into a new and distinct object or article or having a distinct name, character and use; or (b) bringing into existence of a new distinct object or article or thing with different chemical composition or integral structure. 28. On going through the above definition of the manufacture, the test laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) support the definition that a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name, character and use. Therefore, the definition of manufacture as Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is pari materia to definition of manufacture in Income-tax Act as per Section 2(29BA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 29. Therefore, the decision in the case of M/s. Cynamid India Ltd. is applicable to the facts of this case wherein the Apex Court has observed as under : 5. The High Court has answered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd.(supra). 13. I have gone through the case laws relied upon by the Ld.AR. In the case of ITC Ltd.(supra), the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court has been delivered on 02.12.2004 whereas the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra) delivered on 27.1.2006. Therefore, the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is having persuasive value. In all the other cases, (referred to by Ld. AR) have not considered the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra). 14. I have gone through the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra), wherein the section 243 dealt with situation of interest on delayed refund. 15. For better appreciation, section 243 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reproduced as under:- "243. Interest on delayed refunds- (1) if the Income tax officer does not grant refund- (a) In any case where the total income of the assessee does not consist solely of income from interest on securities or dividend, within three months from the end of the month in which the total income is determined under this Act, and (b) In any other case, within three months from the end of the month in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithheld by the Department for 17 years without any rhyme or reason. The interest was paid only at the instance and the intervention of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1887 of 1992 dated 30.04.1997. Interest on delayed payment of refund was not paid to the appellant on 27.03.1981 and 30.04.1986 due to the erroneous view that had been taken by the officials of the respondents. Interest on refund was granted to the appellant after a substantial lapse of time and hence it should be entitled to compensation for this period of delay. The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assesses, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principle amount of tax payable remain outstanding and they are entitled to charge interest till the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to granting of interest on refund of taxes, the refunds are first adjusted towards the taxes and then the balance towards interest. Hence as per the stand that the Department takes they are liable to pay interest only upto the date of refund of tax while they take the benefit of assesses funds by delaying the payment of interest on refunds without incurrin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation. 48. This is the fit and proper case in which action should be initiated against all the officers concerned who were all in charge of this case at the appropriate and relevant point of time and because of whose inaction the appellant was made to suffer both financially and mentally, even though the amount was liable to be refunded in the year 1986 and even prior to. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister for Finance for his perusal and further appropriate action against the erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. 49. By allowing this appeal, the Income-tax Department would have to pay a huge sum of money by way of compensation at the rate specified in the Act, varying from 12% to 15% which would be on the high side. Though, we hold that the Department is solely responsible for the delayed payment, we feel that the interest of justice would be amply met if we order payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date it became payable till the date it is actually paid. Even though the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd., which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in the absence of any statutory provisions in the Act in question. Even though various other judgments of various High Courts and the various Tribunals was brought to my notice awarding 15% interest, in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. (supra) rate of interest is to be confined to 12%. I am also bound to follow the same. Therefore the interest that is liable to be paid by the respondents as per the directions of this Court in Ext. P12 judgment is fixed at 12% per annum. 15. Taking note of the compendious circumstances and reckoning the law, there will be a direction to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at 12% from the date of expiry of three months from 18-11-2002, to the amount of refund already made, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting any interest paid." 20. Further, the same view was taken in the case Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (260) ELT 274 (Tri.Ahmd.....