TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the service tax to the appellant. The department undertook an enquiry on the basis of Form 26AS of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the appellant had short paid certain amount to service tax. In response to the letter of the department, the appellant categorically informed the department that they were under the impression that since entire amount recovered by them was inclusive of service tax and the service tax liability was being discharged by the telecom companies on the entire amount. Hence, they were not discharging the service tax liability. Subsequently, the department issued a show cause notice proposing to demand service tax amounting to Rs. 49,94,022/- for the period 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 and further proposed penalty on them. After due process the Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of Rs. 49,94,022/- and penalty under section 78 and section 77 was also imposed. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner Appeal, which was dismissed by the commissioner. 4. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order confirming the demand of service tax and imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. -All). 2) M/s Kesar Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida reported as 2022 (380) E.L.T. 319 (Tri.-All). 3) M/s Riba Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Panchkula Decided vide Final Order No. 60015/2020 dated 07.01.2020. 4) M/s Marshal Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Faridabad decided vide Final Order No. 60055-60059/2022 dated 15.03.2022. 5) M/s Shahi Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex & ST. Gurgoan-I reported as 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 367 (Tri.-Chen.). 6) Pr. Commr. Of CGST, New Delhi Vs. Emmar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd. Reported as 2021 (51) G.S.T.L. 311 (Tri.-Del). 7) M/s Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported as 2022 (380) E.L.T. 244 (Bom). 8) Dilichand Shreelal Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others reported as 1986 (26) E.L.T. 298 (Cal.). 9) Adarsh Metal Corporation Vs. Union of India reported as 1993 (67) E.L.T. 483 (Raj.). 10) Shreewood Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported as 2016 (44) S.T.R. 592 (P&H). 11) Pr. Commr. Of CGST, New Delhi Vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al was dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its final order dated 14.03.2022. He further submits that the revenue filed a review application against the judgment dated 14.03.2022 passed by the High Court in Civil appeal no. 8/22 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its order dated 23.05.2022. He further submits that this Tribunal is bound to follow the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On the other hand, Ld. DR submits that the amount paid by the appellant was duty as reflected from the various challans vide which service tax has been paid wherein the appellant has deposited the service tax under service tax head 0044 which clearly shows that it is not the revenue deposit but the duty deposit. He further submits that in the present case the provisions of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1945 are applicable and as per the said provisions the appellants are entitled to claim interest on delayed refund if the same is not paid after three months from the date of the order of the appellate authority. He further submits that the decisions relied upon by the appellant in supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shable on the ground that in the said case the amount was paid with endorsement regarding payment under protest whereas in the present case amount was paid voluntarily and no protest was lodged at any stage of investigation, rather the appellant admitted his liability vide its letter dated 30.03.2015 duly recorded in the show cause notice dated 29.09.2015 and Order-In-Original dated 02.07.2018. He further submitted that amount was paid under proper accounting heads of the Central Tax on three different dates during the period of one month. He further submits that the rate of interest which is to be paid on the delayed refund should be as per the provisions of law which prescribes 6% interest only. 6. After considering the submissions by both the parties and the perusal of the decisions relied by both the parties I am of the opinion that the only issue involved in the present case relates to non sanctioning of interest on the refund sanctioned by the department and further the rate of interest of delayed refund. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in various cases and it has been consistently held that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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.), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I notice that appellants deposited amount in September, October and in November 2004, as per the directions of the department. In September 2004, the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court had dismissed the SCA filed by the appellants against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal for failure to m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posit. Such a finding has also been clearly recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 31.01.2017 which order has attained finality. 33. There is no provision in the Excise Act, which deals with refund of Revenue deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded. 39. In this connection reference can also made to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pace marketing Specialities and Ebiz. Com Private Limited, wherein after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the High Court granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum in matters relating to refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication. 40. In Riba Textiles, the Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 12% on refund of amount deposited during investigation and at the time of entertaining the stay application. 41. In view of the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the rate of interest varies from 6% to 18% in the aforesaid Notification issued under Section 11AA, 11BB, 11DD and 11AB of the Excise Act, the grant of interest @ 12 % per annum seems to be appropriate. ....