TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant/assessee exported iron ore fines which are subject to export duty at Rs.300 per MT. However, if the Fe content of the iron ore fines is below 62% they are exempted from export duty in excess of Rs.50 per MT by Notification No. 62/2007-Cus dated 03.05.2007. In other words, if the Fe content is above 62%, export duty has to be paid at Rs.300 per MT and if it is below 62%, it has to be paid at Rs.50 per MT. The exporter filed a shipping bill dated 31.05.2008 claiming the Fe content to be less than 62%. It also enclosed with it a test report from a private testing laboratory viz., Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation (TCRC) dated 30.05.2008 which indicated the Fe content as 61.03%. The shipping bill was assessed provisionally by the assessing officer, subject to execution of a test bond. The conditions of the bond were that the exporter would abide by the test report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratories (CRCL) and if the Fe content is above 62% it would pay the differential export duty. Samples were drawn and sent for testing to the Central Revenue Control Laborato....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liability because the entire demand has been made only by applying the test reports which are on dry MT basis instead of test reports on wet MT basis in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal and also contrary to the directions of the Board in Circular No. 04/2012 dt.17.02.2012 and seeking to re-assess the duty contrary to the test report by the CRCL. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside and we do so. 17. Both appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants." 7. Pursuant to Final Order of this Tribunal, the appellant company filed an application for refund of Rs.1,18,12,250/- along with applicable interest that was deposited during investigation (post export) under protest in the year 2009. The refund claim was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, who sanctioned the refund of Rs.1,18,12,250/- as refund of predeposit under Sec 129E of the Act. Further, he denied the claim of interest in light of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dt.29.06.2021 in Customs/Excise Appeal No. 16/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount paid during investigation, subsequently found to be refundable pursuant to adjudication/ appellate order, was held to be amount deposited by way of Revenue deposit. It was further held relying on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd vs CIT-I, Pune [2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Court examined the scope of Sec 243 of the Income Tax Act, which provides for interest on delayed refund and also examined Sec 35FF of Central Excise Act, which also provides for interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under Sec 35F (Pre-deposit) and observed that the provisions for grant of interest on delayed refund are pari materia under both the Acts. The Apex Court, taking notice that the assessee/Sandvik Asia Ltd have suffered as their money was lying locked in litigation, withheld by the department for about 17 years without rhyme or reason, and further taking notice that the Revenue charges much higher rate of interest on the amount payable by the assessee, and whereas, pays interest at much lower rate on the amount refundable to the assessee, further observing that interest is compensatory in nature, was pleased to grant simple interest @9% per annu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigation are to be treated as deposits as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Team HR Services Pvt Ltd vs UOI [2020 (38) GSTL 457], wherein it has been categorically held that the amount deposited in the course of investigation is not in pursuance of any assessment and therefore, cannot be unjustly retained by the department. It was also held that the amounts deposited under protest at the time of investigation are not collected by the authorities with the sanction of law and therefore, the Government does not acquire any right to retain the said deposit, till the Government is held entitled in law by an authority or Court of law. Further, it was held that the assessee is entitled to interest @6% from the date of deposit till the date of interim order and further @7.5% till such amount is actually refunded to the assessee. Accordingly, learned Counsel for assessee has prayed for grant of interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, in the interest of justice. 15. So far the appeal of Revenue is concerned, the only grievance is that the issue of unjust enrichment has not been properly examined by the Court below and accordingly, the matter may....