TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t authorities by way of an appropriate writ, order or direction or appropriate writ of Mandamus, or any such other writ order or direction, to immediately calculate and grant interest @ 12% from the date of deposit of Rs. 12,90,000/- ie. 7-4-199, till date, within 30 days and failing which to grant 9% interest therefrom, till its actual payment. (B) Any other reliefs deem fit, proper and incidental in the facts of the present case may kindly be granted 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 An intelligence search was conducted on 6.4.1999 by the officer of the DGCEI at the premises of the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have received certain raw materials based on purchase invoices, without actually physi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... c) interest at the rate of 20% on the amount of Modvat credit determined to be disallowable and recoverable, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provision of Rule 57 1(5) ibid; d) why the amount of RS. 12,90,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh ninety thousand only) paid by them through their P.L.A. Entry No. 2 dated 7.4.99 and through their modvat account Entry No. 23 dated 7.4.99 should not be appropriated against the demand; e) why the land, building, plant, machinery, material conveyance or any other things used in connection with the manufacture/production, storage, removal or disposal of such goods or nah other excisable goods of such land or in such building or produced or manufactured with such plant, m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demand with interest and penalty. 6. The petitioners therefore filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who again remanded the matter vide order dated 30.10.2008 for fresh adjudication and the Assistant Commissioner Excise, Vadodara again passed an order on 30.10.2008 confirming the demand along with interest and penalty. 7. The petitioner therefore was constrained to file an appeal for the 3rd time before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide order dated 30.11.2017. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before CESTAT who by order dated 30.11.2017 remanded the case to the adjudicating authority with certain directions. 9 The adjudicating authority by order dated 15.1.2021 again reconfirmed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to interest of Rs. 12,90,000/- from 7.10.1999 as the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the entire addition by the order dated 28.10.2021 and therefore the amount which was collected coercively by the officers of DGCEI during the search on 7.10.1999 by compelling the petitioners to pay Rs. 12,90,000/- by debiting the PLA and Cenvat credit account is required to be paid with interest to the petitioners from the date of deposit. 15.1 It was submitted that the respondent-authority has only granted the interest from 28.4.2021 till 28.12.2021 for 252 days amounting Rs. 53,438/- on Rs. 12,90,000/- relying upon CBIC Circular No. 984 dated 16.9.2014. It was submitted that the rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case held that the DRI could not have jurisdiction to demand and collect any amount from the assessee during the course of search as the officers were not vested with powers of an Assessing Officer. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case also the officers of DGCEI had no power or authority to compel the assessee to deposit the amount during the course of search on 7.10.1999 as they were not having the power of Assessing Officer. It was therefore submitted that since the amount deposited by the petitioners under was under coercion, the petitioners are entitled to interest from the date of deposit. 16. Having heard Mr. Hasit Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners, the facts narrated hereinabove clearly shows that the p....