2022 (10) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and cashew kernel. The appellant got registered with the Service Tax department under the category 'business auxiliary service' and was awarded registration and was payment of service tax with effect 1.2.2005. A show cause No.58 of 2008 dated 15.12.2008 was issued to the appellant stating that the income earned as commission agent has not been correctly declared in the ST-3 returns during the year 2004-05 and demanded service tax for undeclared income for the said period. The demand was challenged before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeal, Cochin, which was allowed and the order in original was set aside finding that raw cashew and cashew kernels are agricultural products and the demand of service tax is not maintainable as t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the order of the CESTAT, a request for refund was made by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kollam Division by Annexure-A5 order and refund order was passed. But only service tax paid was refunded, without any interest. 5. The appellant, by letter dated 18.6.2020 requested to sanction interest for the amount paid by him as service tax. A Calculation statement with interest at the rate of 6% which worked out to Rs.14,17,928/- was also attached. The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kollam by letter dated 24.6.2020 informed that the refund was sanctioned within 3 months and hence, no interest was payable. Later by Annexure-A9 order, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the request for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y me in the above paragraph, but that having not done, therefore, to this extent the impugned order invites interference. 6. In view of the above, I am of the clear view that the appellant shall be entitled to the interest under Section 11BB ibid. from the date he got relief and became entitled to in his first appeal in the first round of litigation, i.e., OIA dated 21/11/2013. Impugned order to this extent is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed on the above terms." 6. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the order passed by the CESTAT is illegal and denial of interest for the period from the date the amounts were actually paid to the Government account, is bad. He contends that the inter....