TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manded the matter to the original authority for re-quantifying the interest payment to the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of PVC compound, PVC master batches etc. It was alleged by the department that the appellant had issued invoices only without supplying goods to the manufactures of wire/cable and also received Cenvatable invoices without actual receipt of the inputs from its suppliers. The investigations culminated in issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 12.02.2007 to the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order in Original dated 02.12.2010 confirmed demand of Rs.9.73 crores (approx.) against the appellant with interest and also imposed equal penalty. Being aggrieved, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut at the same time, it is to be borne in mind that in terms of proviso below amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944, the payability of interest on pre-deposit made prior to 06.08.2014 shall be governed by pre-amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944. Neither amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944 nor any of the circulars relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority to decide the admissibility/quantum of interest is applicable on the issue in hand. In view of clear-cut statutory provisions cited above, I hold that the appeal is allowable. For such conclusion, I place reliance on CCE Vs. ITC Ltd. [2005 (179) ELT 15 (SC)] wherein the Supreme Court has ordered payment of interest on pre-deposit upon expiry of 3 months from the date of final disposal. This j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them before the same Commissioner (Appeals). If the Appellant had been served with the aforesaid notice for personal hearing, then the Appellant would have attended the said hearing as well and in any case the Appellant was represented on the same date i.e. 13.12.2018 in another appeal before the same authority. The Learned Counsel also contended that the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Respondent is time barred and the appellant was not given opportunity to raise such plea, in view of ex-parte order having been passed. 3.1 Learned Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in holding that interest on pre-deposit is to be paid after expiry of three months from the date of final disposal. He submitted that am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority), under the first proviso to section 35F, is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the Appellate authority and such amount is not refunded within three 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. (i) The above said provision is applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own for payment of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit only 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. There is no dispute that the said impugned order was passed after the amendment in Section 35FF ibid, but it has to be borne in mind that in terms of proviso below amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944, the payment of interest on pre-deposit made prior to 06.08.2014 has to be governed by pre-amended Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944 only. In this context, we note that the Supreme Court in the case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd [2022 (60) GSTL 3(SC)] has held that once there are statutory provisions, no authority can grant interest beyond th....