TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant, prior to issuance of show cause notice, an amount of Rs. 7,86,114/- has been found refundable vide the impugned OIO in view of the OIA dated. 7. In view of the foregoing facts, I conclude that the said amount of Rs. 7,86,114/- which was deposited by the appellant on the insistence of the department and before issuance of show cause notice can not be termed as duty and the said amount has to be treated merely as "deposit" 8. Having concluded so, I now turn my attention to provisions/ judicial pronouncements governing the provisions of grant of interest on such deposits. In this regard, I find that the amount in question was not deposited by the appellant neither as the duty nor the interest on that duty. Rather it was an amount paid by them during the course of investigation on the insistence of the department. It is also a fact that the said amount was not deposited by the appellant towards voluntarily admitted duty. Therefore, I am in complete agreement of the contention of the appellant that the said amount is required to be considered as mere "deposit" and not "duty". 9. I find enough force behind appellant's contention that the amount so refunded was retai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai-II vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-II, reported in [2014 (306) E.L.T. 26 (Mad.)] has held that "Interest on delayed refund Amount paid during investigation Interest at 6% per annum payable from date of deposit till date of payment Section 11BB of Central Excise, Act, 1944." (ii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Team HR Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, reported in (2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 457 (Del.)] has held that - "Interest on delayed refund Amount of Rs. 2,38,00,000 deposited by petitioner of its own volition, during audit/investigation, though under protest - Refund of said amount sought vide letter dated 2nd May, 2018 - Petitioner entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from date of deposit." (iii) The Hon'ble CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of BSL Ltd. vs. CCE (Final Order No. 50699/2019 dated 15/05/2019], has observed that even though there is no provision for grant of interest over delayed payment of interest, yet it is allowable because there is no prohibition in law. (iv) Hon'ble Regional Bench of CESTAT, Chandigarh, in the case of Riba Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Panchkula [Final Order No. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al amount of Rs.7,86,114/- without any interest to the Appellant. He rejected the refund of an amount of Rs 6,432/-. 2.6 Aggrieved Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-In-Appeal dated 06.07.2022 who allowed for granting interest in terms of provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the date of deposit to the date of payment of refund. 2.7 Aggrieved Appellant has filed this appeal claiming the interest at rate of 12%. 3.0 Heard Shri Parth Mullick, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant. 3.1 Heard Shri A.K. Choudhary learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, who reiterates 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 arguments. 4.2. Appellant has filed this appeal assailing the above order and have claimed the refund from the date of deposit at the rate of 12%. They have claimed the same on the basis of the order of the Tribunal in the case of: * Vijay Anand & Associates Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner in Excise Appeal No.51541 of 2022 having Final Order No.51151 of 2022 & * Indian Thermoplastics (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est 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 notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 under : "30. ..... 31. Section 11D of the Excise Act deals with duties of excise collected from the buyer to be deposited with Central Government. It provides that every person who is liable to pay dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 upon certain decisions including the decision of this Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1], Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune and Others [(2006) 2 SCC 508 = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) = 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)] and Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 order dated 10-7-2011 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to give interest at the rate of 9%." By separate orders dated 13-3-2020 passed in both the cases, the Review Petitions preferred by the appellant were dismissed. 9. The aforestated judgments and orders passed by the High Court are under challenge in these appeals. The appellants do not dispute the eligibility o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 relevant statute. 8. In the present case also till the insertion of Section 27A in the Act by Act 22 of 1995 there was no right entitling payment of interest on delayed refund under the Act. Such a right was conferred for the first time by the said provision. Act 22 of 1995 also inserted Section 28AA which provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of duty by a person who is liable to pay the duty. Thus at the rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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) SCR 242]). (ii) If a right has been infringed - whether a fundamental right or a statutory right - and the aggrieved party comes to the Court for enforcement of the right, it will not be giving complete relief if the Court merely declares the existence of such right or the fact that existing right has been infringed. The High Court, while enforcing fundamental or statutory rights, has the power to give consequential relief by ordering payment of money re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 was called upon to consider the effect of Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the questions which arose were set out as under : "We shall now indicate how the controversy relating to the meaning of the expression "regular assessment" arises: an assessee pays advance tax according to his estimate of his income during the financial year relevant to the particular assessment year. He then files a return and an assessment is made under Section 143. It is found that he has paid more amount by way of advance tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te 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 interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 9 per cent per annum could be awarded when the terms of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 prescribed payment of interest only at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. The discussion on the point was : "9. There is considerable force in the submissions of Ms. Madhavi Divan, the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Krishnakumar [W.P. No. 83 of 1986, decided on 29-6-1991 (Bom.)] and Changdeo [ W.P. No. 3805 of 2000, decided on 7-7-2000 (Bom.)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 amount of compensation or any part thereof, cannot be paid in the aforesaid denomination, it may be paid in cash." (Emphasis supplied) The said section contemplates the payment of compensation with interest at 3% per annum in annual instalments spread over a period of 20 years or at the end of 20 years. It also contemplates payment being made either by transferable bonds or in cash. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 enabling payment of compensation by cash, in cases where it could not be paid by such bonds, does not disturb the rate of interest, which is 3% per annum for 20 years, provided in sub-section (1) thereof. We are therefore of the view that whether th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., (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 the several decisions which were brought to its notice and also referred to the relevant provisions of the Act which provide for refunds to be made by the Revenue when a superior forum directs refund of certain amounts to an assessee while disposing of an appeal, revision, etc. Since there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding the amount due to the assessee this Court had thought it fit that the assessee should be properly and adequately compensated and therefore in para 51 of the judgment, the Court while compensating the assessee had directed the Revenue to pay a compensation by way of interest for two periods, namely, for Assessment Years 1977-1978, 1978-1979, 1981-1982, 1982-1983 in a sum of Rs. 40,84,90....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 having obtained the assent of the President and hence immune from challenge under Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution. (d) There is no repugnancy between the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Rocrich and Devika Rani Rocrich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 (in short "the Acquisition Act"), and hence no assent of the President is warranted under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. (e) Public purpose is a precondition for deprivation of a person from his property under Article 300A and the right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in that article and when a person is deprived of his property the State has to justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object and purpose of the legislature and other related factors. (f) Statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Court was in error in awarding interest at the rate exceeding 6 per cent in the instant matters." 4.5 In the present case impugned order clearly observes that the amount that was deposited by the appellant at the time of visit of officers to their premises was appropriated by the Original Authority. The amount so appropriated acquired the character of duty, the moment it is appropriated against the demand made. In case of Mafatlal Industries [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "68. Re. : (I) : Hereinbefore, we have referred to the provisions relating to refund obtaining from time to time under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Whether it is Rule 11 (as it stood from time to time) or Section 11B (as it obtained before 1991 or subsequent thereto), they invariably purported to be exhaustive on the question of refund. Rule 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 a provision of the nature of sub-section (3) of Section 11B (amended) is unconstitutional. Applying the propositions enunciated by a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Kamala Mills, it must be held that Section 11B [both before and after amendment] is valid and constitutional. In Kamala Mills, this Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act (set out hereinbefore) on the ground that the Bombay Act contained adequate provisions for refund, for appeal, revision, rectification of mistake and for condonation of delay in filing appeal/revision. The Court pointed out that had the Bombay Act not provided these remedies and yet barred the resort to civil court, the constitutionality of Section 20 may have been in serious doubt, but since it does provide such remedies, its validity was beyond challenge. To repeat - and it is necessary to do so - so long as Section 11B is constitutionally valid, it has to be followed and given e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscussion 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 exhaustive. In case of any doubt or ambiguity in these propositions, reference must be had to the discussion and propositions in the body of the judgment. (i) Where a refund of tax/duty is claimed on the ground that it has been collected from the petitioner/plaintiff - whether before the commencement of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 or thereafter - by mis-interpreting or mis-applying the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Tariff Act or by mis-interpreting or mis-applying any of the rules, regulations or notifications issued under the said enactments, such a claim has necessarily to be preferred under and in accordance with the provisions of the respective enactment before the authorities specified thereunder and within the period of limitation prescribed therein. No suit is maintainable in that behalf. While the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 - and of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise]] before the expiry of two years from the relevant datein such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 12-A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person: Provided ... Provided further that the limitation of two years shall not apply where any duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has been paid under protest. (2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Exciseor Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund: Provided that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, one M/S Aay Kay Engineering Works and its proprietor, in respect of certain goods which had been seized. The aforesaid SCN was followed by another SCN dated 29 January 2007 in terms of which the Department raised a demand for additional duty as well as proposing penal action again against the noticees for having violated the provisions of an exemption notification. The petitioner asserts that during the pendency of those proceedings, it was also forced to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000. The SCNs were ultimately finalized in terms of the order in original dated 08 February 2008. 4. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 45,31,574 /- under Section 11A of the 1944 Act and held the petitioners liable to pay the same along with interest thereon in accordance with Section 11AB of the 1944 Act. Further directions were framed for confiscation of cash amounting to Rs. 44,96,000/- and the imposition of monetary penalties amounting to Rs. 45,31,574/-. The amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- which had been deposited by the petitioners during the pendency of the SCN proceedings was also appropriated against the demands which stood crystalli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against; (iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 35-B, unless the appellant has deposited ten 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 the decision or order appealed against: Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed Rupees Ten crores: Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section "duty demanded" shall include,- (i) amount determined under Section 11-D; (ii) amount of erroneous CENVAT credit taken; (iii) amount payable under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 or the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 or the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.]" "Section 35-FF. Interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under Section 35-F.-Where an amount deposited by the appellant under Section 35-F is required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the contention canvassed by Ms. Narain who had submitted that a refund of duty and interest paid thereon is liable to be viewed as distinct from a pre-deposit that may be made in compliance with Section 35F of the 1944 Act. The Circular of the Board too strikes an identical position when it is stated that a deposit which is made in compliance with a statutory pre-condition for the preferment of an appeal cannot be viewed as "duty". It is the aforesaid aspect which appears to have weighed with the Board in proceeding to formulate its directive for refunds being effected immediately upon an appeal coming to be decided in favour of the assessee and not being made dependent upon any application being made in respect thereof. 27. The aforesaid position stands further fortified when one reads Section 35FF of the 1944 Act. As would be evident from a reading of that provision, Section 35FF as distinct from Section 11B does not require the making of a formal application by the assessee. In fact and contrary to Section 11B, the said provision uses the expression "....there shall be paid to the appellant interest.....". Thus, the language of Section 35FF is an embodiment of the manifest....