TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02.02.2017. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. A brief chronology of events in respect of both the appeals is as under in tabular form : Chronology Events of E/60156/2022 E/60157/2022 Amount deposited by the appellant Rs. 1,00,000/- vide TR-6 Challan dated 20.02.2002; Rs.10,00,000/- vide TR-6 Challan dated 07.12.2006 as a pre-deposit in compliance to order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Rs. 1,00,000/- vide TR-6 Challan dated 20.02.2002; Rs.10,00,000/- vide TR-6 Challan dated 07.12.2006 as a pre-deposit in compliance to order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi SCN issued proposing demand SCN dated 10.04.2002 proposing demand of Rs.20,75,207/- SCN dated proposing 10.04.2002 demand of Rs.18,22,684/- OIO confirming demand the OIO dated 30.06.2005 OIO dated 30.06.2005 OIA confirming demand the OIA dated 21.04.2006 OIA dated 21.04.2006 CESTAT Final Order dropped the demand Final Order 02.02.2017 dated Final Order 02.02.2017 dated Date of filing the refund application 24.11.2017 07.11.2017 Refund sanctioned (without interest) Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osits which were finally refunded vide orders 11.04.2018 & 05.02.2018. He further submits that the appellants remained deprived of the money which remained with the department for such a long period and was then refunded, for which, the appellants need to be compensated for such delayed retention. He further submits that the scheme of Central Excise Act/Rules provides that whenever any demand of duty has not been paid by any assessee at the appropriate rate and time, the same attracts charging of interest on such amount for such delay; therefore, the principle of equity needs to be followed even in such cases where any amount has been retained/withheld by the Revenue till the date of reimbursement of such amount to the assessee. In support of his submission, he relies on the following cases: * Sandvik Asia Limited vs. Commr of Income Tax-I, Pune - 2006 (1) TMI 55 Supreme Court * Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs. Commr of CGST, Noida (and vice versa) - 2021 (5) TMI 870 CESTAT Allahabad * Fujikawa Power And Others vs. CCE - 2019 (11) TMI 1197 CESTAT Chandigarh * Riba Textiles Limited vs. CCE - 2020 (3) TMI 602 CESTAT Chandigarh * CCE vs. Riba Textile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f UOI vs. Tata SSL Ltd - 2007 (218) ELT 493 (SC); thus, becoming the law of land that the interest on refund of pre-deposit has to be granted on expiry of 3 months from the date of order in the favour of the assessee. 5.2 He further submits that the adjudicating authority has held that the interest in payable on pre-deposit of Rs.11,00,000/- under Section 35FF of the Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, since the refund was not disbursed to the appellant within 3 months of receipt of the CESTAT's final order dated 02.02.2017; and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned orders dated 30.09.2021, while deciding the matters on merit, has also held that the appellants are entitled to interest on Rs.11,00,000/- under Section 35FF of the Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, as the said pre-deposit has not been disbursed within 3 months of receipt of the final order dated 02.02.2017. 5.3 He further takes me through the findings of three members' bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad vs. ITC Ltd (supra), which was again followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Tata SSL Ltd (supra). 5.4 In support of his submissions, he also relies on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection Ltd vs. Commr of CGST, Jammu [vide Final Order No. 60578/2025 dated 28.05.2025 in Excise Appeal No. 60421 of 2022], wherein the Division Bench of the Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the assessee-appellant who claimed interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund is made. The Division Bench of the Tribunal, after considering the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Goldy Engineering Works (supra), has held that the assessee-appellant is not entitled to interest from the date of deposit but is entitled to interest as per the provisions prescribed under Section 11BB or Section 35FF. In this regard, I may refer the relevant finding, which is reproduced herein below: "6. We find that though the issue of grant of interest on the pre-deposits has been a subject matter of litigation for long, in a recent judgment in the case of Goldy Engineering Works - (2023) 10 Centax 189 (Del.), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has put to rest the different interpretations on this issue holding that interest is governed only by two provisions i.e. Section 11BB and Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act; in the case of refund of deposit made during the investigat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 obligation of the respondents to refund the pre-deposit consequent to an order passed by the Appellate Authority notwithstanding an application having not been made by the depositor. 28. The distinction between Sections 11B and 35FF is also evident when one bears in mind the la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforenoted general proposition. What we seek to emphasize here is that in the present case, the issue of refund is duly regulated by two statutory provisions whose prescriptions would necessarily have to be adhered to. However, for reasons aforenoted we find ourselves unable to endorse the observation appearing in Para 34 of the report where a deposit of duty and a pre deposit were considered to be identical concepts. As was noted hereinbefore, a pre-deposit made as a condition of filing an appeal is in any case not considered to be "duty" even by the respondents. 32. The decision of this Court in Team HR Services, had frowned upon the distinction sought to be advocated by the respondents there between a deposit made under protest and a pre-deposit made in connection with an appeal. As would be further evident from a reading of Paras 14 and 15 the counsel appearing for the respondents had also failed to draw the attention of the Court to any statutory provision which governed the issue of refund. The aforesaid decision is thus clearly distinguishable especially when undisputedly, in the present matters the issue of refund is governed by the provisions of Sections 11B and 1....