TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant in terms of the order of this Tribunal dt. 05.09.2019 on the amount of pre-deposit made in terms of the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without interest. The appellant claimed the interest by filing this appeal from the date of deposit till its realization. 3. Heard the parties. 4. During the course of arguments, the ld. Counsel for the appellant adopted the arguments advanced by Ms. Krati Singh, Advocate appearing in the case "M/s Modern Dairies Ltd" listed on the same day. 5. As the case of "M/s Modern Dairies Ltd" has been decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 60413/2020 dt. 03.12.2020, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: "8. ---- I find that the merits of the case have not been disputed either of the side which were decided in the favour of the appellant vide order dt. 05.07.2018. 9. The issue involved in the matter is whether the appellant is entitled to claim the interest on delayed refund or not? If yes, then from which date? The Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was relevant to decide the issue in hand, which is extracted herein blow: "SECTION 35FF - Interest on delayed refund of amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating authority appropriating the amount of refund claim before the Commissioner (Appeals) and intimated to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dt. 12.06.2019 that this Tribunal has allowed the refund to the appellant on 21.05.2019. Instead of taking note of the said fact, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant without taking note of the decision of this Tribunal on 22.07.2019, whereas the order of this Tribunal was uploaded on the website itself on 01.07.2019. The act of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be appreciated. 12. Now, the issue comes that from which date the appellant is entitled to claim the interest till its realisation. Admittedly, as per Section 35FF of the Act, the appellant was entitled to claim the interest on delayed refund after three months from the date of the order of this Tribunal. This Tribunal has finally disposed of the appeal of the appellant on 05.07.2018. 13. The ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CEAT Ltd (supra) to say that the date when the application for Rectification of Mistake has been decided, from the said date, limitation for refund claim i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uent upon the order of the Appellate Authority, it will carry an interest at the specified rate till the date of refund. It permits payment of interest at the specified rate for the entire period, the amount remains deposited with the authority. However, the aforesaid provision has been subjected to a proviso, which lays down that if any amount has been deposited prior to the enforcement of the Finance Act No. 25 of 2014 i.e. before 06.08.2014, it shall continue to be governed by the unamended provision of Section 35FF of the Act, which means that in cases of deposit made prior to 06.08.2014, interest would be payable only if the amount is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of communication of the appellate order. Apart from the above provision, there is no other provision, which permits payment of interest on the amount of excise duty deposited in pursuance to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal by any party. A composite reading of unamended Section 35FF and amended Section 35FF of the Act reveals that in respect of an amount deposited prior to the commencement of the Finance Act No. 25 of 2014, interest on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and against the Department holding that where the amount was illegally detained by the Revenue and ultimately, refunded, the assessee is entitled to interest even though there may not be a specific provision to that effect. This was laid down following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Director of Income Tax Vs. TATA Chemicals Limited (2014) 6 SCC 335, wherein it was held that when the collection is illegal, there is corresponding obligation on the Revenue to refund such amount with interest. The aforesaid decisions would not be any help of the petitioner inasmuch as there was neither any illegal detention nor any unauthorized collection of any amount by the Revenue, rather the said amount was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim direction of the Tribunal. The law is well settled that the taxing statutes have to be construed strictly and when there is no specific provision for doing a particular thing, the same cannot be done either in equity or on compassionate basis. All other decisions, which have been cited on behalf of the petitioner, only observes that when there is a delay on the part of ....