TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder No. 51784/2021 dated 01.09.2021 allowing the appellant eligible for Cenvat Credit availed for the period prior to 01.04.2011 directing the department to quantify the same. 2. Subsequent to the said Final order and order quantifying the demand, the appellant filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs.7,15,09,643/- on 04.01.2022. The said refund was sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No. 339/AC/ST/REFUND/Div.V/Indore/2020-21 dated 02.02.2022, however, without any interest on the said amount. Resultantly, the order under challenge was assailed before Commissioner (Appeals). However, Commissioner (Appeals) has opted to not to interfere in the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Bharat Raichandani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms Jaya Kumari, learned Authorised Representative for the department. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a catena of decisions as below to impress upon that the issue of grant of interest on the amount sanctioned as refund to the appellant of the amount was deposited during the investigat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted facts are sufficient for us to hold that findings of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Mafatlal (supra) are not applicable to the given set of circumstances. 5. We observe that the Adjudicating Authority while denying the entitlement for interest invoked section 11B/11BB of Central Excise Act. From the bare reading of the above section, it is clear that the provision refers to the claim of refund of duty of excise only, it does not refer to any other amount collected without authority of law. In the case on hand, admittedly, the amount sought for as refund was the amount paid during investigation is held to not to be the liability of the appellant. 6. In the given circumstances, we find that there is lack of authority to collect such service tax by the appellant. It would not give the Department an authority to retain the amount paid which otherwise was not payable by the appellant. Nothing may act as an embark on the right of the appellant to demand refund of payment made by them under the mistaken notion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India rather has held that one has to see whether the amount claimed is unconstitutional and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months from the date of communication of such order to the adjudicating authority, unless the operation of the order of the appellate authority is stayed by a superior court or tribunal, there shall be paid to the appellant interest at the rate specified in section 11BB after the expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority, till the date of refund of such amount." 17. On-going through the provisions of both Income Tax Act, 1961 and Central Excise Act, 1944, the interest on delayed refund is payable after expiry of 3 months from the date of granting refund or from the date of communication of order of the appellate authority, which are parimateria. Therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) is law of land, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is to be followed by me, wherein the Hon'ble Apex has observed as under:- "45. The facts and the law referred to in paragraph (supra) would clearly go to show that the appellant was undisputably entitled to interest under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act as held by the various High Courts and also of this Court. In the instant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury; the consideration or price of a privilege purchased; some thing given or obtained as an equivalent; the rendering of an equivalent in value or amount; an equivalent given for property taken or for an injury done to another; the giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for the whole injury suffered; 6 Excise Appeal No. 60446 of 2018 remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description; remuneration for loss of time, necessary expenditures, and for permanent disability if such be the result; remuneration for the injury directly and proximately caused by a breach of contract or duty; remuneration or wages given to an employee or officer." 47. There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statute provisions of law as it then stood and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all be payable @ 12% per annum as held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd.-2017 (353) ELT 179 (Ker.) wherein it has held as under:- "14. Now, the sole question remains to be considered is what is the nature of interest that the petitioner is entitled to get. As discussed above in the judgment Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC (supra), the Apex Court confined the interest to 12% and further held that any judgment/decision of any High Court taking contrary view, will be no longer good law. The said judgment is rendered, in my considered opinion under similar circumstances. So also in Kuil Fire Works Industries v. Collector of Central of Excise [1997 (95) 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 a....