TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T as 63.5% with moisture content of 9%, which would be less than 62% in WET MT, requiring to pay export duty of Rs.50 PMT. As per agreement with foreign customer, the Exported Iron Ore testing to be carried out and Test Report to be given by the accredited agencies, which again should be acceptable to the Customs. This is a time consuming process. In order to avoid delay in exports, they have paid Export Duty @ 300 PMT. On 18.05.2009 [acknowledged on 26.05.2009], they have submitted their letter individually for these Shipping Bills citing there with the relevant Supreme Court's order and enclosing therewith the Final Invoice, Load Port Test Report from the accredited Testing Agency etc., requesting the Customs officials to Finalize the provisionally assessed Shipping Bills. 3. After this, the case had a chequered history, having travelled between Orders passed by the Departmental officials, High Court and Tribunal, finally with the Final Re-assessment cum Refund Order was passed on 05.09.2023, granting them the refund of differential Export Duty of Rs.6,93,69,000. However, no interest was granted for the excess Export Duty paid by the appellant at the time of export. Being aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing rectification request, 11. PH before Assistant Commissioner 12.06.2014 Made long follow up, submitted various judgments, CBIC Circular 04/2012-CUS dtd 17.02.2012 justifying rectification/ assessment request with a request to allow benefit of Notification No. 62/2007 dt 03.05.2007. 12. Representation by filing of CP Gram through PG Portal for non-issuing of Order after PH. 24.04.2015 CBOEC/E/2015/00893, for implementation of Comm Appeals order 13. Order in Original dated 11.05.2015 11.05.2015 Received on 25.06.2015, rejected the request for Assessment / Re-assessment/ Rectification, dishonoring Hon'ble Supreme Court / CBIC direction issued vide Circular No. 04/2012 dated 17.02.2012 14. Writ Before Hon'ble High Court for accepting the request of rectification 25.06.2015 for having efficacy of resolution. 15. Rejection by High Court (Appeals) 10.09.2015 Hon'ble Court did not accept Writ petition and directed to go through normal process. 16. Filing of Appeal again before The Commissioner (Appeals) 28.09.2015 Submitted by Hand 17. PH before Commissioner (Appeals) 10.12.2015 Submitted all the justifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Customs Export Kolkata, also field Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata, which was registered vide Appeal No. CUSTA/2/2023, IA NO: GA/1/2023, on the grounds that the matter does not fall under rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 30. The Hon'ble High Final Order 28.06.2023 The Departmental appeal is, dismissed. Consequently, the connected application also stands dismissed, basis not find any question of law, far less to speak of substantial question of law, involved in the instant appeal. 31. Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court, registered as WPO/636/2023 06.07.2023 Aggrieved by rejection order the Company have filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata. The Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata has accepted the same and after going through facts and circumstances and hearing the both sides, vide its order dated 06.07.2023, set aside the said refund order while confirming that- the adjudicating authority was bound to carry the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in its letter and spirit and the impugned order-in original is not only a factual error it is a jurisdictional error and error in law since it is contrary to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 08.12.2023 OIO No. KOL/CUS/AC/PORT/Export(REF)/ 638/2023 dated 28.11.2023 issued rejecting the in claim basis refund issued within 8 weeks from Hon'ble High Court Order as directed. 41. Appeal before 1st Appeal Authority 15.01.2023 Appeal against OIO dated 28.11.2023 filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) CUST/77/2024 42. Personal Hearing before FAA 13.03.2024 PH attended describing justification over interest claim. 43. Order in Appeal 28.07.2024 OIA No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/451/2024 dated 18.07.24 is issued allowing interest treating prescribed time limit from date of CESTAT final Order i.e. 28.07.2022 44. Request for implementation of OIA dated 18.07.2023 02.08.2024 Submission of request letter for implementation of OIA dated 18.07.2023 with copy of OIA. 45. Appeal before Hon'ble CESTAT 19.10.2024 Appeal filed before CESTAT - C/76391/2024 46. Misc Application for Early Hearing 10.12.2024 EHP Allowed vide order dated 12.12.2024 47. Reminder Request for implementation of OIA dated 18.07.2023 12.12.2024 Reminder submitted with earlier letter copy and OIA. 48. PH before Hon'ble CES....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall be done. After setting aside the decision under the impugned letter, dated 4.6.2010, I order that the lower authority shall dispose of the representations of the appellant under various letters and to determine whether the case of the appellant fits in under: errors arising out of omissions. In doing so the lower authority should consider the ratio of the judgments referred to above and the meanings given to the term 'omission' in various dictionaries and thereafter pass order/give decision and after providing opportunity to the appellant. 11. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. 6. Even after the above clear order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no effort was made by the Department to complete the assessment proceedings. The Ld CA also submits that no further Appeal was filed against this OIA by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Thus the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) had attained finality and the officials were bound to complete the rectification / assessment as per this Order, which was not taken up for the next more than 3 and half years. Personal Hearing held on 12.06.2014, but no Order was passed. Then application was made through C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only a factual error it is a jurisdictional error and error in law since it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. The High Court remanded back to the adjudicating authority concerned to implement the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 28th July, 2022 strictly as per findings, observations and directions given by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid order and particularly giving relief to the petitioner as per Notification No.62/2007- Cus dated 03.05.2007 as per paragraph 8 of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authority representative. 11. After the High Court's Order dated 6.7.2023, the appellant submitted follow up letters on 24.07.2023 and 13.07.2023. Thereafter on 17.08.2023 a letter was sent by the Asst Commissioner seeking the copies of documents, which was replied on the same date while submitting the requested documents. Thereafter Reassessment cum refund Order No. OIO No. KOL/CUS/AC/PORT/EXPORT/489/2023 dtd 05.09.2023 was passed, granting refund of Rs.6,93,69,000, without gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant's registering the issue under CPGRAM, the Adjudicating authority took the proceedings and has passed the order on 11.05.2015 [4 and half years after the OIA], completely ignoring the directions of his higher authority. Because of this, the issue had to travel to High Court, Commissioner (Appeals) and to CESTAT. This process took another more than 7 years, when the Tribunal passed the Final Order on 28.07.2022. Even thereafter, the Revenue still continued to ignore the directions of the Tribunal and rejected the consequential refund on 05.01.2023. The appellant had to once again approach High Court. The Hon'ble High Court passed the order on 6.7.2023, clearly stating that the Adjudicating authority is bound by the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. Only thereafter, on 05.09.2023, the appellant was granted the refund of Export Duty, without any consideration whatsoever to the interest part. This process has again taken 1 year 2 months from the date of the Tribunal's order, wherein in between on adverse order was also passed, ignoring the directions of the Tribunal. For the non-granting of consequential interest, the appellant had once again to approach the Commissioner (App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng case laws, wherein it has been held that the interest is required to be paid @ 12 per cent per annum : The Judgement of in the case of SONY PICTURES NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD., In Writ Petition No.39089 of 2016 - Judgement dated 4th April 2017 Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCGST Noida Final Order No. 70180-70181 / 2021 Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs Riba Textiles Limited CEA No.8 of 2022 (O&M), Date of Decision : March 14, 2022 Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/01/2006 18. In view of the above submissions, he prays the appeal may be allowed holding that the interest @ 12% per annum is payable from 18.05.2009. 19. The Ld AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He makes submits makes the following submissions : (a) As per the Dept's contention, the assessment was never provisional and it was final for all purposes. Therefore, having paid the Export Duty, without filing any letter to the effect that they are opting for Provisional assessment, the appellant cannot claim that assessment has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll No Shipping Bill Date Qty (WMT) Fe % (DMT) Moist ure % Fe% (WMT) Fe % (DMT) Moisture % Fe% % (WMT) 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 MV Shen Nong Feng 1803 05.06.2007 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.85 8.52 58.41 2 MV REA 3161 20.07.2007 28000 63.5 9 57.79 63.94 7.98 58.84 3 MV Alba 4771 12.09.2007 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.87 8.62 58.36 4 MV You Xuan 6481 20.11.2007 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.95 8.05 58.80 5 MV Prabhu Jivesh 6347 14.11.2007 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.95 8.36 58.60 6 MV Good Light 3810 13.08.2007 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.85 8.5 58.42 7 MV Five Stars Pioneer 8764 05.02.2008 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.66 7.87 58.65 8 MV Themera 8979 13.02.2008 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.82 7.64 58.94 9 MV Tharsyvovlos 9389 29.02.2008 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.76 6.2 59.81 10 MV Good Purpose 7096 12.12.2007 25000 63.5 9 57.79 63.85 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he OIA No. KOL/CUS/CKP/285/200 dated 11.10.2010, holding as under : 8. Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under- "Correction of clerical errors etc.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or order passed by the Central Government or any other officer of customs under this Act. or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission' may at any time be corrected by the Central Government the Board or such officer of customs or the successor in officer of such officer as the case may be." 9. The Kerela High Court in Aluminium Industries Ltd (Supra) has in para 6 of the judgment held that four types of errors are mentioned in this section 154 for invoking power under it (i) clerical mistake (ii) arithmetic mistakes (iii) error arising in accidental slips (iv) error arising from accidental omissions. The lower authority while deciding and conveying in the letter dated 4.6.10 has referred to only the first two types of error under section 154, namely, (i) clerical mistake (ii) arithmetic The lower authority has not rendered any decision whether the case of the appellant is covered by error arising from accidental slips and err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....55) ELT 433 (SC), it has been held as under : 6...............The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. 7...................In the light of these amended provisions, there can be no justification for any Asstt. Collector or Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even when he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the order of the higher appellate authority. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the same officer. He has only to bring the matter to the notice of the Board or the Collector so as to enable appropriate proceedings being taken under Section 35E(1) or (2) to keep the interests of the department alive. If the officer's view is the correct once....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) Assessment should has be done by first determining the Fe content as above based on the ratio of Supreme Court's decision and thereafter duty leviable should be determined. (d) The Lower Authority did not make any decision whether the issue in question is covered under by error arising from accidental slips and errors arising from accidental omissions. (e) In terms of the Court and Tribunal's decision, where assessment have not been done properly, the same be rectified by invoking powers under Section 154. (f) The Assessing Officer was duty bound to correctly apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court and determine the Fe content based on the weight of the Ore exported including the weight of the moisture, all details of which were available in the stuffing bills/ supporting documents. 5. From the above observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), it emerges that the rejection of the rectification application by the Assistant Commissioner was not in order and that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal reported in 1997 (89) ELT 19 (S.C.) was to be applied to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant, as per law. (14) The Revenue [Adjudicating authority], having already overstepped his power of review of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) earlier, has once again vehemently and adamantly gone against the Tribunal's Order itself. Even Final Order No.75404/2022 dated 28.07.2022 has expressly discussed the subject matter with clear directions, the Adjudicating authority passed the OIO No. KOL/CUS/DC/PORT/08/ EXPORT(REF)/2023, Refund order No 01/2023 dated 05.01.2023, rejecting the refund claim arising out of rectification / re-assessment. This is a clear case of contempt of the jurisdictional Tribunal. His passing of the Order also has been noted by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in their Order dated 28.06.2023, wherein it has been held as under : At the outset, Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has fairly and concededly submitted that in terms of the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, against which the instant appeal has been filed, the original authority has decided the issue and in technical term, the instant appeal has virtually become infructuous. 2...............Mr. Mait....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing out of an omission in the light of the ratio of the judgments referred therein. The department did not challenge the said order of remand passed by the appellate authority; rather proceeded to accept the observations made therein and the first authority again decided the case rejecting the claim of the respondents. The appellate authority concurred the view of the original authority and the matter travelled before the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the matter was further relegated to the original authority. So far as the scope and the powers to be exercised by the authority under Section 154 of the Act are concerned, the appellate authority in the order of remand considered the same and found that there has been a departure from the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ascertaining the content of 'fe' and therefore if the authority has adopted a method contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, it must be regarded as an error or omission arising in the decision. The "error" arising therein from accidental slip or omission has to be construed in a proper perspective and should not be squeezed in a narrow compass. The error is perceived from the omiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the subordinate authority. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal position as appears from record now the question arises as to whether the adjudicating authority in passing the impugned order in original dated 5th January, 2023, on remand, has acted strictly as per observations, findings and directions given by the Tribunal its remand order and particularly in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the said order and on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order in original I find that the adjudicating authority has not acted strictly as per findings, observations and directions given by the Tribunal rather it has given its own reason and opinion and has not implemented the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in its letter and spirit. Though Mr. Maiti very vehemently argues that since the order-in-original is an appealable order under the statute before the first appellate authority, this Court should not interfere with the same on the ground of availability of alternative remedy which is not convincing and acceptable to this Court for the exceptional reason that aforesaid order of the Tribunal which has attained its finality after the order of the Division Bench of this Court by neith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2023, passed the order granting the refund the excess Export duty of Rs.6,93,69,000. The relevant portions of the OIO read as under : 15. Meanwhile, the exporter had filed a refund application in proper Form No. 102 on 05.08.2022 praying for refund of Rs 6,93,69,000.00 on the ground that on implementation of the direction as given by the Hon'ble tribunal in its Final Orderdated 28/07/2022. 19. Accordingly, a letter-dated 17.08.2023 was issued, by this office, to the exporter with the request to submit all the connecting documents/records for the purpose of re-assessment of the aforesaid shipping bills and also for the purpose pf ascertainment of consequential relief including sanction of refund, if any. In response to the same, the exporter has submitted the following self-certified documents/records; Self Certified Copies of all 12(twelve) Shipping Bills * Self Certified Copies of all the respective Proforrna Invoice, * Self Certified Copies of all the respective Final Invoices, * Self Certified Copies of all the respective Bills of Lading, * Self Certified Copies of all the Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge, in case of as many as 05(five) consignments. As per such Test Reports vis-å-vis the conditions as prescribed in the respective Contracts, the exporter had also raised Final Commercia, Invoices to the overseas buyers and then, had received the export proceeds through bank. 30.Vide letters-dated 18.05.2009, the exporter had submitted all the LPTRs, DPTRs, Finäf Commercial Invoices, Bank Realization Certificates etc to the department and had requested to finalize the impugned shipping bills based on such documents and to refund the excess duty paid thereon. Again, vide letter-dated 01.10.2009, the exporter had requested for correction of errors as happened in the impugned shipping bills regarding the applicable rate of duty, in terms of the provisions of Section 154 cf the Customs Act, based on such Test Reports. Later on 05.08.2022, the exporter had filed a forrnal Refund application praying for refund of Rs. 6,93,69,000 on account of such excess payment on the contention that they were eligible for reduced rate cf duty to the tune of Rs. 50.00 per MT as prescribed under Notification No. 62/2007-Customs, 37.Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich no sample was drawn nor was any test conducted. Therefore, as per him, it is a case of Final Assessment. Thus, for all purposes, it is a mere case of rectification in view of the decision of the Tribunal and also to follow the procedure of Gangdhar Supreme Court ruling and the CBIC's circular 04/2012 Cus dated 17.2.2012. 25. Therefore, the refund has been granted after verifying all the documentary evidence and procedure as specified by the Supreme Court and Circular of CBIC. He has cited the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. However, he concedes that the time limit set therein is not attracted and the 'Unjust Enrichment clause' is not attracted since the Chartered Accountant has certified to the effect that the Duty liability has been borne by the appellant and has not been passed on to the overseas buyers. 26. Some points which have been observed by us are as under : (a) On going through this letter dated 05.08.2022 submitted by the appellant, we find that vide this letter the appellant has only requested for implementation of the Tribunal's order. It is not in the nature of refund claim filed under any refund format "Application for refund of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....either any response was sent nor any action was taken. If as per the Adjudicating Authority in the Order dated 05.01.2023, the assessment was already Final, the Dept was required to respond to the letter dated 18.05.2009 stating that the assessment was already Final. This was never done. (j) Subsequently when the appellant sought rectification vide their letter 01.10.2009, under Section 154, no reply whatsoever was given and only after regular follow up the Order was passed on 04.06.2010. (k) The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the OIA on 11.10.2010, holding that rectification under Section 154 is required to be taken up. But no action was taken for the next more than 4 and1/2 years. Thereafter, the OIO was passed rejecting the request. This actually amounts to non-following of the orders of the higher fora and such acts are held to be legally not sustainable by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamalakshi referred to supra. 27.The above observations would help us to come to a conclusion about the nature of the re-assessment / finalization. We find that the Tribunal and High Court have laid emphasis on Section 154, although the Tribunal has also noted the point ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant, who being agitated by the fact of non-granting of the interest has filed their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) 33.The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned OIA No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/451/2024 dated 18.07.24 has allowed the appeal partly by holding that interest is to be granted as per the prescribed time limit from date of CESTAT final Order i.e. 28.07.2022. Again, it is the appellant who has filed his appeal before the Tribunal being agitated by this OIA. The Revenue has not filed any Appeal against this OIA, which was affirmed by the Ld AR, during the Hearing. Hence, it can be safely taken that the Revenue is not aggrieved with the impugned OIA. 34. Since, we have come to a conclusion that the amount has been refunded in terms of Section 27, it would be important to go through the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors vide Order dated 21 October, 2011. The relevant portions of this judgement are extracted below: The core issue which confronts us in all these appeals relates to the question of commencement of the period for the purpose of payment of interest, on delayed refunds, in terms of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, under sub-section (2) of section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section." 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree months has not been granted by Central Excise formations. On perusal of the reports received from field formations on such representations, it has been observed that in majority of the cases, no reason is cited. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no interest needs to be paid. 13. We, thus find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in fact the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in U.P. Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. (supra). In the said case, while dismissing the special leave petition filed by the revenue and putting its seal of approval on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, this Court had observed as under: "Heard both the parties. In our view the law laid down by the Rajasthan High Court succinctly in the case of J.K. Cement Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 4 vide Para 33: "A close reading of Section 11BB, which now gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Act 1962, as it existed during the period under litigation, with regard interest, which is extracted below : 27A. Interest on delayed refunds. [Inserted by Act 22 of 1995, Section 55 (w.e.f. 26.5.1995).]- If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, [not below five per cent.][and not exceeding thirty per cent. per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette] [Inserted by Act 22 of 1995, Section 55 (w.e.f. 26.5.1995). ],[on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Provided that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. Admittedly, due to this inordinate delay, the appellant would have been compelled to borrow from banks on payment of interest. 39. Therefore, we hold that the Ranbaxy judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. This is a case where the erroneously excess Export Duty was collected from the appellant during the period 2007-2008. After following up from 2009 onwards for proper rectification of the assessment order and litigation at various forum, finally the refund was granted on 5.9.2024. In terms of Ranbaxy judgement, the appellant would be eligible interest on the refund amount granted to them. 40. It would also be relevant to refer to the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors - Order dated 27 January, 2006 The Hon'ble Supreme Court framed the following questions : A. Whether in view of binding decisions of this Court the respondents are estopped from urging that compensation as claimed by the appellant is not payable by them? And therefore whether the Bombay High Court erred in allowing them to urge such a contention in the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration on the elaborate submissions made by counsel appearing on either side. In our opinion, the High Court has failed to notice that in view of the express provisions of the Act an assessee is entitled to compensation by way of interest on the delay in the payment of amounts lawfully due to the appellant which were withheld wrongly and contrary to the law by the Department for an inordinate long period of up to 17 years. In our view, there is no question of the delay being 'justifiable' as is argued and in any event if the revenue takes an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the withholding of monies is 'justifiable' or 'not wrongful'. There is no exception to the principle laid down for an allegedly 'justifiable' withholding, and even if there was, 17 (or 12) years delay has not been and cannot in the circumstances be justified. At the initial stage of any proceedings under the Act any refund will depend on whether any tax has been paid by an assessee in excess of tax actually payable to him and it is for this reason that Section 237 of the Act is phrased in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refunded in the year 1986 and even prior to. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister for Finance for his perusal and further appropriate action against the erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. 41. In the present case, as has been observed in the earlier paragraphs, the delay in taking up the issue for re-assessment by the Revenue was to the tune of more than 14 years. Hence, we hold that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour in the cited case of Sandvik Asia is squarely applicable. 42. Now that we have come to a conclusion that the appellant would be entitled to interest on the refunded amount, the next question to be answered would be as to from what date would they be entitled. 43. At Para 37 above, we have gone into the important landmark dates. It is seen that the appellant has filed their first letter seeking the finalization of assessment on 26.05.2009 for the Export Duty paid during 2007-2008. They have subsequently requested for 'rectification' in terms of Section 154 on 01.10.2009. The refund has been given to the appellant only after the rectification under Section 154 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 42. Thus, for the reason stated above, Excise Appeal No. 70628 of 2019 is allowed and the order dated 28-5-2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified to the extent that interest shall be granted to the appellant @ 12% instead of @ 6% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Excise Appeal No. 70674 of 2019 filed by the Principal Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 28-5-2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is dismissed. (62) G.S.T.L. 136 (P & H) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PANCHKULA Vs RIBA TEXTILES LTD. 9. While deciding the issue of interest, Ld. Tribunal has relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, Pune - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) wherein it was held that :- xxxxx ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% on the refund amount from the date of deposit till the date of payment thereof. 15. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida (vice- Versa) reported as 2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLHABAD has held that in the light of the above discussed notifications the grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum seems to be appropriate. Tribunal Delhi (CESTAT) also in the case of Duggar Fibre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & CGST, Delhi reported as 2021 (378) ELT 293 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the adjudicating authority was ordered to grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The relevant Para is reproduced as under: "I further take notice that Divisioin Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST - 2021-TIOL-306-CESTATALL, wherein interest on pre-deposit (made during investigation) have been enhanced from 6% to 12%, following the ruling of the Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). I further direct the Adjudicating Authority to grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Finally assessed order as is being claimed by the Revenue or is a case of finalization of assessment as is being claimed by the appellant? We hold that it is the case of rectification being carried out by the Revenue, in terms of Section 154 of Customs Act 1962, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, resulting in re-assessment Order being passed by the Adjudicating authority on 05.09.2023. (c) Whether any interest is eligible to the appellant in either of the above cases (a) and (b) The case falls under the category (b) and the provisions of Section 27A are attracted and accordingly, interest is required to be paid. For this we are placing reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Ranbaxy and Sandvik Asia and other case laws. (d) If they are found to be eligible to interest, what would be the relevant date of interest? The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that they are eligible for interest from 28.07.2022 [three months from this date] whereas the appellant is claiming that the interest is to be paid from date of deposit of excess amount or max treating 18/26.05.2009 [three months from this date] As per our detailed dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. Lahiri. case of Booledade de Fomento 4) Decisions taken recently by Dormissioner of Customs (Appeal) in Omler-in-appeal dated 16.9.2008 in respect of exports effected form Kolkatta. Thus the issue regarding payment of custen duty only on iron conceni is thus settled and whatever exoses duty paid by us an anviste content based on Analysis Report enclosed) is to be refunded to us. Document 2 SESA GOA LIMITED Continuation Sheet No. Date: It is our submission that assessment made provisional on any aspect or ground will be treated as provisional for all aspects and no formal order of finalization of provisional assessment has been issued to us: In the decision in the case of Collector of CE Matias Vs IOC Ltd 2002 (141) ELT 334 (Mad) the Hon'ble High Court held that if an assessment is provisional, it is provisional for all purposes and cannot be treated as final in. respect of a matter not considered. Since in the instant cases, the issue regarding payment of customs duties on moisture content in the iron ore has not been considered yet, the assessment made is not final and, therefore, we request. you to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... beker. Into accur. The bee in this yard stands acted by the Ibe Ongeme Court Judgment in the of UOT ys Cangalhar Narsinghdas Agarwal reported 1917 (5) LT 10 (SC). Your good wapode that Artide and 142 if thes Cantitativa of cilia prowic at the law laciared by the Hohe Supreme Coat ah belading en wil Car and tall alocaly, vil arul judicial bony of Iralia, shall not only be bound by it, bei also apply and enforce the Jaw declared by the Herbie Supreme Cont ju the (137) Document 4 2 Call Stact No. Ims: the presentear the shipping billa have based by creating, bu couler byw lail dowi ty tm Harble Jupreme Canct to the case of Gangadhar Narsinghd. Agarwal, which carry is an era o asent Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1952 was in your goleil the power bo Carter, at any time such a crow cession in the The B vestimin bt powers even the successor in fire to correct such an meskin or hul submission, since the serving uff had while sing the Shipping Bills, cited to apply the low landown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the sald ce ade in wahasummenti requined to created by your product in execise of powers need under Sectio....