TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 dated 12.09.2023 Rs.2,36,386/- Dated 10.10.2022 The facts in brief are as follows: Present are the refund claims filed after two rounds of litigation. This Tribunal vide Final Order No. 521-540/2011 dated 04.07.2011 remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for quantifying the amount of credit disallowed. However, Tribunal allowed some amount of credit. In compliance of this order Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order dated 04.07.2018 quantifying the credit for such amount as equal to the amount of refund claim as mentioned above in respective appeal and also ordered the imposition of penalty. The said amount of penalty was paid, however, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.07.2018 was challenged before this Tribunal. Vide the final order dated 06.07.2022, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, thereby holding appellant eligible for entire amount of credit i.e. respective amounts in each appeal (even the requantified amount). 1.1 Since the order of reversal of Cenvat credit has totally been set aside that the appellant filed the impugned refund claims as mentioned above. However, the original adjudicating authority in respective appeals has sanctioned t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m relief has already been granted to the appellant to the extent of providing that the department shall release, subject to outcome of the appeal, 50% of the amount of interest as per the judgment of the Tribunal in favour of the respondent-assessee. Finally, it is impressed upon that present is not the case of unjust enrichment. With these submissions, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal with a request to order sanctioning of interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of refund sanctioned from the date of deposit till the date of payment and to allow the appeal accordingly. Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions including the one in their own case for a different period: (i) J.K. Cement Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Udaipur in Excise Appeal No. 51367, 52086 of 2019 vide Final Order No. 50590-50591/2022 dated 06.07.2022. (ii) Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida in Excise Appeal No. 70628, 70674 of 2019 vide Final order No. 70180-70181/2021 dated 25.05.2021 (iii) J.K. Cement Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods and Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned that any amount deposited even at the stage of adjudication, the same is held to be an amount of revenue deposit as has been held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Coimbatore Vs. M/s Pricol Ltd in CMA No. 3185 of 2008 decided on 12.02.2015. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, perusing the record of all these appeals. 7. It is observed that the impugned refund has the history which relates back to the six show cause notices which proposed the reversal of the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the inputs used by the appellant in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods. The show cause notices were issued in the period September 2003 to April 2004. It is also an admitted fact that the total amount of Rs.13,20,352/- as was proposed to be reversed vide the show cause notices was got reversed by the appellant after the issuance of the said show cause notices. Though the appellant has claimed that the deposit was under protest but the department has objected the same alleging that the reversal was made voluntarily by the appellant. Apparently and admittedly, there is no written protest ever raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uties which can be refunded if required consequent upon the order of the appellate authority along with the interest at such rate to be fixed by the Central Government vide a notification, however, for not below 5% per annum and not exceeding 36% per annum. Since the amount in question was not deposited for the purposes of filing appeal nor it is proved to have been deposited under protest, on the contrary it is observed to be an amount appropriated for the specific proposal of the six show cause notices about reversing the said amount. It cannot be called as the revenue deposit. The question of applicability of Section 35FF does not at all arise. Admittedly, present is not the case of the amount collected in excess of duty. Resultantly, the only provision applicable in the given circumstances is Section 11BB. The said section reads as follows: "11-BB. Interest on delayed refunds.- If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 11-B to any 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, 2[not below fiv....