TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of central excise duty by floating various dummy units, so as to avail the benefit of duty free clearances under SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 as amended. On the basis of that intelligence, units of both the appellants were investigated and during the course of investigation, some amount was deposited. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to demand the duty by denying the benefit of SSI exemption notification and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated and the demand along with interest was confirmed. Penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal set aside the adjudication proceedings. Consequent to that, the appellants filed refund claim of the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d vs. CCE Bangalore - 2020-TIOL-39-CESTAT-BANG. He further relied on the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Cement Works vs. CCE Udaipur vide Final Order No. A/51052/2021 dt. 02.03.2021, wherein it was held that the appellant is entitled to claim the interest on delayed refund from the date of deposit till its realization @12% p.a. 4. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. opposed the contention of the appellants and submitted that the case laws relied upon by the appellants have been examined by the various Superior courts and the amount paid by the appellants during adjudication has been considered by this Tribunal by granting stay vide Stay Order No. SO/53989-54002/2014-EX[DB] dt. 18.11.2014 as pre-deposit. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Guj) to say that the amount, deposited during adjudication proceedings, was a deposit which the Department was required to refund and interest is to be paid from the date of CESTAT order. He further submitted that amount was no longer as deposit after confirmation of demand and consideration thereof as part in lieu of pre-deposit. It is a submission that the amount paid by the appellant was pre-deposit as per the Stay Order dt. 18.11.2014. He further submitted that interest cannot be granted on the principle of equity and it is to be paid at the statutory rate of interest prescribed by the statue. He also rebutted the case laws relied upon by the appellants on various grounds. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions and case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pressure. The adjudicating authority has held that as they have not filed any complaint for signing the cheques under pressure, it means that they were willingly and concisely paid the amount against their liability. I find that the observation of the adjudicating authority is only on the basis of non-filing the complaint that the said amount was not paid under pressure. Non-filing of the complaint by the appellant does not mean that the amount was not paid under protest. Therefore, I hold that the amount paid during the course of investigation was under protest. The same view was taken by the various High Courts as in the case of Pricol Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that there are also many judgments of vario....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo occasions also have made the payments which does not mean that the amount paid is under coercion or involuntarily as the same was paid on three different dates. The facts of this case are, however, different as in this case, the amount was paid under pressure; therefore, the facts of said decision are not applicable to this case. Further, the ld. A.R. relied on the case of this Tribunal in the case of Som Flavour Masala Pvt Ltd (supra). In the said case also this Tribunal observed that the amount paid during the course of investigation is still required adjudication of the show cause notice, therefore, the amount paid during adjudication cannot be attained finality and to be refunded to them. In that circumstance, this Tribunal came to t....