Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (8) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inesh Tobacco Industries Ltd. (Unit-I and Unit-II) [The Appellant] challenging the order-in-appeal no.1306-CRM-CE-JDR-2018 dated 29.11.2018 and order-in-appeal no.16(CRM)CE/JDR/2019 dated 02.01.2019, whereby the interest on the refund amount has been affirmed @6% instead of 12%, as claimed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Gutkha. The refund application was filed by the appellant on 26.12.2008 claiming refund of central excise duty paid under compounded levy scheme on the goods, which were exported and hence were entitled for rebate of duty paid on the goods exported by them. Both the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(179) ELT 15 (SC)] and of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s.Govind Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2014-TIOL 677 (HC) =2014(35)STR 444 (All.)] claimed the interest @12% for the delayed payment. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount in question was revenue deposit and not duty and, therefore, provisions of Section 11BB would not apply. He further argued that the show cause notices were issued for rejection of the refund of interest on merits and there was no notice for restricting the interest to 6% p.a. as per Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [CEA] and hence, the impugned order restricting the interest to 6% is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Learned counsel has also refe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The issue is no longer res integra and has been considered and settled by the two High Courts. In the case of C. Padmini Chinnadurai (supra), the Division Bench rejected the contention of the appellant that since it is 'pre-deposit' and not 'central excise duty', therefore, the notification no.67/2023 would not apply, observing as under:- "16. Unless it has been established that "Pre-Deposit" is not with reference to the "Central Excise Duty", but "Pre-Deposit" can be made in respect of other payment also, the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel has to be accepted. That is to say even if the term "Pre-Deposit" is used, if the deposit is towards "Central Excise Duty", then as far as the payment of interest is concerned, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Single Member of this Tribunal in Devendra Udyog (supra) considered all the aforesaid decisions relied on by the appellant as well as by the Revenue and observed that:- "7. In Section 11BB, to clarify the rate of interest in the range of 5% to 30%, the statute itself has empowered the Central Government to fix any rate of interest for the time being by way of a notification. This clarifies that once there is a notification of Central Government fixing 6% as the rate of interest same has to be followed as having power of statute." 11. Lastly, we may refer to the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. D.D. International Pvt. Ltd. [CUSAA 69/2023 & CM Appl.48489/2023(Stay) dated 05.12.2023], where th....