TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en sanctioned Accordingly, sanction of interest on the amount of deposit (refund) is prayed vide the present appeal. 2. Relevant facts in brief are as follows: That the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots TMT bars etc. They were alleged to have clandestinely manufactured and removed the finished goods from their factory. Accordingly, the amount Rs.60,87,300/- was proposed to be recovered from them vide the show cause notice dated 21.1.2013. The said demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 171/13-14 dated 26.5.2014. However, the appeal thereof has been allowed by this Tribunal vide the Final Order No. 55473-76 dated 30.6.2017. Department had also filed the appeal against the aforesaid Order -in-Original. This....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. M/s. J K Cement Workds vs CCE, CGST, Udaipur [Final Order No. 51052/2021 dated 02.03.2021]; 5. M/s. Glossy Colour & Paints vs CCT, New Delhi [Final Order No. 51670/2021 dated 16.7.2021]; 6. M/s. Hitesh Industries & others vs CGST, New Delhi [Final Order No. 51631-51633/2020 dt 7.12.2020]; 7. M/s. Fujikawa Power vs CCE & ST, Chandigarh I [Final Order 61041-61042/2019 date 26.11.2019 ] 5. It is submitted that interest only of Rs. 46,662/- on the amount of pre- deposit is in violation of the settled law in this respect. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) is, accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. Per contra learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that refund has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys and found that this is only a condonable offence. Therefore, he noted that the amount deposited was required to be refunded. He also noted that the assessee had deposited the amount only on the insistence of preventive officers. Therefore it is to be construed as a deposit under protest. On similar facts in the cited judgments, such deposits are treated as deposits made 'under protest'. Further more, the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247(S.C.)] has clearly ruled that if duty deposits are made during investigation, then it is to be construed as deposit made under protest. The order passed by the Commissioner is legal and proper and there is no infirmity in the same. The appeal is rejected." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded." Since the entire amount as was proposed to be recovered from the appellant was got deposited even prior to the issuance of Show Cause Notice and since the said demands stand already set aside vide the order of this Tribunal, it stands clear that the said amount was not the liability of the appellant to be deposited i.e. it was not the amount of duty. Hence section 11B of Central Excise Act creating the notion of three months as impressed upon by learned Departmental Representative, is no applicable to the facts of present case. The amount which stands deposited since 06.07.2012 has been kept with the department with no authority fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a matter of fact, in our view, the officers of DRI had clearly no jurisdiction to demand and collect any amounts from the assessee, in view of the fact that they are not vested with powers of an Assessing Officer. Furthermore, if we were to accept this argument of the learned counsel, then it would tantamount to allowing the Revenue to take advantage of its own wrong. 11.1 This apart, the Revenue has enjoyed the benefits of the money collected from the assessee on account of purported liability to pay duty, which was ultimately proved to have been wrongly foisted. Therefore, in our opinion, it only be right that the Revenue be called upon to pay interest to the assessee because, by its nature, any such collection of money by Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the pre-deposit made by the assessee was directed to be returned to him with 12% interest. I have also come across the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-IV [2012 (285) E.L.T. 188 (Cal.), wherein the peremptory directions of the Apex Court in the judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra) was considered and ordered 12% interest, and further held that when the High Court directed the respondents to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular dated 8-12-2004 on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months, it has to be construed that, the Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v.....