TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2010 to January 201 1. During the investigation appellant had deposited Anti Dumping Duty(ADD) amounting to Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. 2.2 On completion of investigations/ enquiries, a show cause notice no. 29/2015 dated 29.5.2015 was issued to the appellant. Principal Commissioner Noida Customs vide OIO No. 03/Pr. Commr./Noida-Cus./2017 dated 28.02.2017 confirmed the full demand of Rs. 7,38,54,123/- towards anti-dumping duty along with interest and imposed equivalent penalty on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, penalty of Rs. 1 crore was also imposed on the appellant company under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Personal penalty of Rs. 1 crore was also imposed on Shri Vishal Gupta, Director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and further penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 The order in original was set-aside by CESTAT, Allahabad vide Final Order No. 71124-71125/2019 dated 18.06.2019. 2.4 Appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- being the ADD deposited by them during the course of investigation. The said refund claim was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, Noida Customs Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills P Ltd. [2009 (243) ELT 560 (T-Bang)] • In view of the above decisions appellant are entitled to interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund. 3.3 Authorized representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Impugned order records following findings in respect of the issue on hand: "8. The appellant, in his appeal petition, claimed interest from the date of deposit of the said amount. However, I find that there is no provision under Customs Act 1962 to call an amount paid during investigations as 'Deposit'. Amount so paid is towards probable 'Duty' liability only and in adjudication order, same is appropriated as duty only, Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of CIT, Gujarat vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, reported in [2013 (296) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] has held that - "Refund - Interest on delayed refund only when statute provides - It is only_ interest provided under statute which can be claimed by assessee from Revenue and no other interest on such statuto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 1500000 7 Pay Order 122653 dated 20.09.2011 20.09.2011 1500000 Total 14500000 4.4 Even if the claim of the appellant is accepted that the amount deposited by them should be treated as "deposit" or as "revenue deposit", then alos the interest provisions as provided by Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962 as it existed on the dated of deposit shall be applicable. Section 129EE prior to its substitution by Finance Act (No 2) 2014 with effect from 06.08.2014 read as follows: "129EE Interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under the proviso to Section 129E Where an amount deposited by the appellant in pursuance of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as appellate authority), under the first proviso to Section 129 E, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to insertion of this section there was no specific provision in respect of interest o n the deposits made, and sought to be refunded as per the decisions of the appellate authority. Nearly all the decisions referred to by the appellant are in respect of the deposits made prior to this insertion, hence are distinguishable. 4.6 I have considered all the arguments further advanced by the appellant and the decisions relied upon by the appellant, in the case of Jindal Pipes Ltd. [Final Order No 70535/2024 dated 08.04.2024 in Excise Appeal No.70403 of 2020] and have observed as follows: 4.3 Appellant has filed this appeal assailing the above order and have claimed the refund from the date of deposit and at rate of 12%. They have claimed the same on the basis of decision of Cahndigarh bench in case of Riba Textiles Ltd [Final Order No 60115/2020 dated 17.01.2020] "6. On going through the decision cited by learned A.R. in the case of M/s Juhu Beach Resort Ltd (supra), I find that in the said case, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd 3 Excise Appeal No. 60446 of 2018 vs. CIT, Pune - 2007 (8) STR 193 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te 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." 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of deposit till its realization. 19. Further, the interest on the refund shall 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% inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is to be treated as refund of pre-deposit made when the appeal was pending. There is no dispute that the amounts deposited is duty but this is not the issue which has been taken into account while precedent decisions have allowed the interest at 12% on the refunds claimed in respect of pre deposit. I find that in the decisions cited by the learned advocate, interest at 12% has been allowed. Therefore, following the judicial discipline, I consider it appropriate that interest in this case also is to be allowed @ 12%. Accordingly, original adjudicating authority is directed to workout the differential interest amount and make the payment to the appellants." 21. As the provisions of section 243 Income Tax Act, 1961 and section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944, are parimateria. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) and Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) I hold that the appellants are entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date its refund @ 12% per annum." 7. As this Tribunal has examined the issue in details in the case of M/s Marshall Foundry & Engg. Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of interest on delayed payment of duty (w.e.f. 1-4-2016). - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 5/2011-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 1st March, 2011 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i), vide, number GSR 136(E), dated the 1st March, 2011, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby fixes the rate of interest at fifteen per cent per annum for the purpose of the said section. 2. This notification shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2016. 36. The Notification issued under Section 11BB provides interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. It is reproduced below : Notification No. 67/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-9-2003 Notification Under Section 11BB Interest @ 6% per annum on delayed refunds. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in supersession of the not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. In Riba Textiles, the Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 12% on refund of amount deposited during investigation and at the time of entertaining the stay application. 41. In view for the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the rate of interest varies from 6% to 18% in the aforesaid Notifications issued under Sections 11AA, 11BB, 11DD and 11AB of the Excise Act, the grant of interest @ 12% per annum seems to be appropriate." B. Continental Engines Pvt Ltd. [2022 (382) ELT 522 (T-Del)] "7. A perusal makes it clear that the amount of pre-deposit is to be refunded along with the interest which was not below 5% and shall not exceed 36%. No concept of any time-limit is being mentioned in the said provision. Hon'ble Apex Court also has settled this issue in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. reported as 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) holding the assessee entitled for interest along with the refund of the amount which he was not liable to pay to the Department. 8. I also endorse the following findings of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-ALL = 2022 (380) E.L.T. 219 (Tri. - All.) as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate writ(s) for directions is the Respondents for providing appropriate compensation as well as interest, for delay in the granting of refund;" 4. The first case arises out of Special Civil Application No. 18591 of 2018 filed by M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. submitting that said Writ Petitioner was entitled on the basis of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act for compensation in receipt of delayed payment as detailed in Annexure D of the petition, which in turn dealt with 12 refunds with delay ranging between 94 to 290 days. The special civil application had thus prayed for appropriate compensation. 5. In both the petitions it was submitted that inaction leading to inordinate delay in granting refunds was per se arbitrary and that the inordinate delay impacted the working capacity of the Writ Petitioners thereby reducing their ability to conduct business and as such appropriate compensation ought to be awarded along with interest for delay. The submissions were opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 6. The High Court considered the rival submissions in light of the statutory provisions and relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate of 9% per annum. The authority concerned shall look into the chart provided by the writ applicants, which is at Page 30, Annexure D to the writ application and calculate the aggregate refund, the writ applicants are entitled to 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the GSTR-38. The respondents shall undertake this exercise at the earliest and calculate the requisite amount towards interest. Let this exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The requisite amount towards the interest shall be paid to the writ applicants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order." 8. The appellant being aggrieved, preferred Review Petitions in both the cases. It was submitted inter alia : "4. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court has directed the respondent authority to pay simple interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the GSTR-3B. 5. It is respectfully submitted that as per section 56 of the IGST Net Interest at the rate of not exceeding six percent may be given whereas by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition is only for the purpose of seeking refund. It has been observed : "We do not consider it proper to extend the principle justifying the consequential order directing the refund of amount illegally realised, when the order under which the amounts had been collected has been set aside, to cases in which only orders for the refund of money are sought. The parties had the right to question the illegal assessment orders on the ground of their illegality or unconstitutionality and, therefore, could take action under Article 226 for the protection of their fundamental right, and the courts, on setting aside the assessment orders, exercised their jurisdiction in proper circumstances to order the consequential relief for the refund of the tax illegally realised. We do not find any good reason to extend this principle and, therefore, hold that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the petitioner claims a right." 7. The Court has emphasised that there was no legal right in the appellant who had filed the writ petition to claim the refund under the releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nforce a money claim and therefore, not maintainable. The observations in Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740] related to a claim for refund of tax and have to be understood with reference to the nature of the claim made therein. The decision in Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740] has been explained and distinguished in several subsequent cases, including in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 549] and ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 553] The legal position becomes clear when the decision in Suganmal [AIR 1965 SC 1740] is read with the other decisions of this Court on the issue, referred to below : (i) Normally, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a civil suit. But an order for payment of money may be made in a writ proceeding, in enforcement of statutory functions of the State or its officers. (Vide Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1962 SC 1320 : 1962 Supp (1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns. But even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a given case. (Vide U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 549]) (vi) Where the lis has a public law character, or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access to justice by way of a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be denied. (Vide Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242) We are therefore of the view that reliance upon Suganmal was misplaced to hold that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable." 16. We, therefore, proceed to consider the merits. Turning to the basic question it must be noted that in the following cases, this Court dealt with the question as to payment of interest on the amount due by way of refund : (A) In Modi Industries Ltd. and Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [(1995) 6 SCC 396] a Bench of three Judges of this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the date of payment of the tax. Nor is it paid till the date of refund. It is paid only upto the date of the regular assessment. No interest is at all paid on excess amount of tax collected by deduction at source. Before introduction of Section 244(1A) the assessee was not entitled to get any interest from the date of payment of tax upto the date of the order as a result of which excess realisation of tax became refundable. Interest under Section 243 or Section 244 was payable only when the refund was not made within the stipulated period upto the date of refund. But, if the assessment order was reduced in appeal, no interest was payable from the date of payment of tax pursuant to the assessment order to the date of the appellate order. Therefore, interpretation of Section 214 or any other section of the Act should not be made on the assumption that interest has to be paid whenever an amount which has been retained by the tax authority in exercise of statutory power becomes refundable as a result of any subsequent proceeding. (Emphasis supplied) (B) In Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., a Bench of two Judges of this Court considered the question whether int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act requires the Collector, after possession of surplus land was taken over under Section 21(4) of the Act, to cause public notice requiring persons interested to lodge their claims. Section 25 of the Act provides for determination of compensation and apportionment thereof. Section 26 deals with mode of payment of amount of compensation and the same is extracted below : "26. Mode of payment of amount of compensation. - (1) The amount of compensation may, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), be payable in transferable bonds carrying interest at three per cent per annum. (2) The bonds shall be - (a) of the following denominations, namely - Rs. 50; Rs. 100; Rs. 200; Rs. 500; Rs. 1000; Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000; and (b) of two classes - one being repayable during a period of twenty years from the date of issue by equated annual instalment of principal and interest, and the other being redeemable at par at the end of a period of twenty years from the date of issue. It shall be at the option of the person receiving compensation to choose payment in one or other class of bonds, or partly in one class and partly in another. (3) Where the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation." (D) In Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, the correctness of the decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. came up for consideration before a Bench of three Judges of this Court, and the matter was considered thus : "3. In order to answer the aforesaid issue before us, we have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court in Sandvik case [Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 2 SCC 508] and the order of reference. We have also considered the submissions made by the parties to the lis. 4. We would first throw light on the reasoning and the decision of this Court on the core issue in Sandvik case [Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 2 SCC 508]. The only issue formulated by this Court for its consideration and decision was whether an assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Income Tax Department for the delay in paying interest on the refunded amount admittedly due to the assessee. This Court in the facts of the said case had noticed that there was delay of various periods, ranging from 12 to 17 years, in such payment by the Revenue. This Court had further referred to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1996 and certain notifications issued by the State Government. The questions which arose for consideration were set out in paragraph 25 of the decision as under :- "Whether the relevant provisions violated the basic structure of the Constitution in so far as they conferred power on the executive government for withdrawal of exception without hearing and without reasons and whether the provisions of the Acquisition Act were protected by Article 31(A) of the Constitution and whether they were violative of Article 300(A) of the Constitution?" After dealing with these questions, the reference was answered thus : We, therefore, answer the reference as follows : (a) Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act and the Notification dated 8-3-1994 are valid, and there is no excessive delegation of legislative power on the State Government. (b) Non-laying of the Notification dated 8-3-1994 under Section 140 of the Land Reforms Act before the State Legislature is a curable defect and it will not affect the validity of the notification or action taken thereunder. (c) The Acquisition Act is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the inordinate delay of up to 17 years in making refunds was a special circumstance when this Court was persuaded to accept grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in Sandvik Asia Ltd. Even while doing so, the observations made by this Court in Paragraph 48 of the decision are quite clear that "the award of interest in refund and amount must be as per the statutory provisions of law and whenever a specific provision has been made under the statute such provision has to govern the field." The subsequent decision of the Bench of three Judges in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals noticed that the grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent was in the facts of the case in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 19. Since the delay in the instant case was in the region of 94 to 290 days and not so inordinate as was the case in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the matter has to be seen purely in the light of the concerned statutory provisions. In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 per cent. The award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56. The High&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, is to the same effect - indeed, more comprehensive and all-encompassing. It says, "(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any court or in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder or in any law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section". The language could not have been more specific and emphatic. The exclusivity of the provision relating to refund is not only express and unambiguous but is in addition to the general bar arising from the fact that the Act creates new rights and liabilities and also provides forums and procedures for ascertaining and adjudicating those rights and liabilities and all other incidental and ancillary matters, as will be pointed out presently. This is a bar upon a bar - an aspect emphasised in Para 14, and has to be respected so long as it stands. The validity of these provisions has never been seriously doubted. Even though in certain writ petitions now before us, validity of the 1991 (Amendment) Act including the amended Section 11B is questioned, no specific reasons have been assigned why ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturer, whether on the question of classification, valuation or any other issue, does not automatically entail refund. Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 27 of the Contract Act, whether before or after 1991 amendment - as interpreted by us herein - make every refund claim subject to proof of not passing-on the burden of duty to others. Even if a suit is filed, the very same condition operates. Similarly, the High Court while examining its jurisdiction under Article 226 - and this Court while acting under Article 32 - would insist upon the said condition being satisfied before ordering refund. Unless the claimant for refund establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another, he would not be entitled to refund, whatever be the proceedings and whichever be the forum. Section 11B/Section 27 are constitutionally valid, as explained by us hereinbefore. They have to be applied and followed implicitly wherever they are applicable. 99. The discussion in the judgment yields the following propositions. We may forewarn that these propositions are set out merely for the sake of convenient reference and are not supposed to be exha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintaining a suit or a writ petition. All refund claims except those mentioned under Proposition (ii) below have to be and must be filed and adjudicated under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act or the Customs Act, as the case may be. It is necessary to emphasise in this behalf that Act provides a complete mechanism for correcting any errors whether of fact or law and that not only an appeal is provided to a Tribunal - which is not a departmental organ - but to this Court, which is a civil court." 4.7 Even if the amount is considered to be refund of deposit then also the same has to be refunded under section 11B as the said section has provided for the refund of deposit lying in account current. The said provision as enshrined in Section 11B is reproduced below: 11B. Claim for refund of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty.- (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty may make an application for refund of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise]] before the expiry of two years from the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mafatalal Industries and the above provisions whether of the duty, interest or any deposit made are governed by the provision of Section 11B of the Act. The interest thus gets governed by the provisions of Section 11BB as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy, referred in the impugned order. There has been exception carved out only for determination of relevant date for determining the period for which interest is to be paid in respect of deposit made as per Section 35F for filing the appeal before an appellate authority. Section 35FF provides that interest would be paid from the date of deposit made under Section 35F. 4.10 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in case of Goldy Engineering Works [Order dated 14.07.2023 in WP (C) 4332/2022] observed as follows: "3. For the sake of brevity, the Court deems it apposite to notice the facts as they obtain in the writ petition filed by M/s Goldy Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr.3 On 27 July 2006, a Show Cause Notice4 is stated to have been issued to the petitioner, its proprietor, one M/S Aay Kay Engineering Works and its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h duty].- .... Section 11-BB. Interest on delayed refunds.- ... 22. It would also be pertinent to notice Sections 35F and 35FF in order to highlight the distinction between the statutory scheme underlying refund of duty and the return of a pre-deposit made in connection with an appeal that may be preferred. Those two provisions are extracted hereinbelow: - "Section 35-F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal.-The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal- (i) under sub-section (1) of Section 35, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officer of Central Excise lower in rank than the [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise]; (ii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 35-B, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ental appeal before the CESTAT came to be dismissed. 24. We deem it apposite to observe that the mere pendency of an appeal or an order of stay that may operate thereon would not detract from the obligation of any person claiming a refund making an application as contemplated under Section 11B(1) within the period prescribed and computed with reference to the "relevant date". We do so observe in light of the indubitable principle that an order of stay that may operate in an appeal does not efface the demand or the obligation of refund that may have sprung into existence. It merely places the enforcement of the order appealed against in abeyance. The order of stay would, in any case, be deemed to have never existed once the appeal comes to be dismissed. 25. We further note that the subject of interest on delayed refund which is governed by Section 11BB itself prescribes the starting point for payment of interest on delayed refunds to be the date when an application under Section 11B(1) is received. On a conjoint reading of Sections 11B and 11BB of the 1944 Act, therefore, we come to the irresistible conclusion that interest on delayed refund is clearly depende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being unjustly enriched. The making of an application and a declaration to the aforesaid effect is thus not merely an empty formality. This too appears to reinforce the imperatives of an application being formally made before a claim for refund is considered. 30. That only leaves the Court to consider the decisions which were cited by Mr. Mishra for our consideration. However, before proceeding to do so, we deem it pertinent to enter the following prefatory observations. A levy of interest on refund must undoubtedly follow where it is found that the amount has been unjustifiably retained or remitted with undue delay. The respondents cannot be permitted to retain moneys which are otherwise not due or are otherwise liable to be returned. The solitary question which stands raised in these matters is the date from which that interest would flow. In Shri Jagdamba Polymers, the High Court on facts had found that the refund was inordinately delayed even though a claim for the same had been promptly lodged. This is clearly evident from Para 7 of the report. The said decision is thus clearly not an authority for the proposition that a refund must automatically follow de hors ....