TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide final order dated 24.03.2015 partly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue. Consequent to that, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit taken on the basis of this Tribunal order dated 27.08.2003. The revenue asked the appellant to pay interest amounting to Rs. 43,96,783/- for the reversal of Cenvat credit for the intervening period, although during the entire period, Cenvat credit taken by the appellant remain unutilized in their Cenvat credit account, so, the appellant denied for reversal of Cenvat credit. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.02.2016 and 12.03.2016, the Assistant Commissioner deducted the above said amount of interest from the appellant's sanctioned rebate claim on exports. As the said amount of interest was recovered in February & March, 2016 which the appellant protested, thereafter, the appellant contested the said deduction of interest from the rebate claims. Vide order dated 20.02.2020, this Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant. Consequent to that, the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund claim of the said amount of Rs. 43,96,783/- vide two orders dated 31.03.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. CIT, Pune - 2007 (8) STR 193 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Chennai-II vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd - 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.) have not been considered. Therefore, the said decision cannot be relied upon. As in the case of M/s Marshall Foundry & Engg. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has examined all said decisions and thereafter observed as under: "8. The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Tribunal in the case M/s. Fujikawa Power and other vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I vide Final Order No. 61041-61042/2019 dt.26.11.2019 wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- 14. I have gone through the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra), wherein the section 243 dealt with situation of interest on delayed refund. 15. For better appreciation, section 243 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reproduced as under:- "243. Interest on delayed refunds- (1) if the Income tax officer does not grant refund- (a) In any case where the total income of the assessee does not consist solely of income from interest on securities or dividend, within three months from the end of the month in which the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld by the various High Courts and also of this Court. In the instant case, the appellant's money had been unjustifiably withheld by the Department for 17 years without any rhyme or reason. The interest was paid only at the instance and the intervention of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1887 of 1992 dated 30.04.1997. Interest on delayed payment of refund was not paid to the appellant on 27.03.1981 and 30.04.1986 due to the erroneous view that had been taken by the officials of the respondents. Interest on refund was granted to the appellant after a substantial lapse of time and hence it should be entitled to compensation for this period of delay. The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assesses, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principle amount of tax payable remain outstanding and they are entitled to charge interest till the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to granting of interest on refund of taxes, the refunds are first adjusted towards the taxes and then the balance towards interest. Hence as per the stand that the Department takes they are liable to pay interest only upto the date of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. Therefore, the Court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation. 48. This is the fit and proper case in which action should be initiated against all the officers concerned who were all in charge of this case at the appropriate and relevant point of time and because of whose inaction the appellant was made to suffer both financially and mentally, even though the amount was liable to be refunded in the year 1986 and even prior to. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister for Finance for his perusal and further appropriate action against the erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. 49. By allowing this appeal, the Income-tax Department would have to pay a huge sum of money by way of compensation at the rate specified in the Act, varying from 12% to 15% which would be on the high side. Though, we hold that the Department is solely responsible for the delayed payment, we feel that the interest of justice would be amply met if we order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. ITC Ltd., which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in the absence of any statutory provisions in the Act in question. Even though various other judgments of various High Courts and the various Tribunals was brought to my notice awarding 15% interest, in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the 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 an....