TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notices were served upon the appellant (03.08.2012, 02.04.2014 and 17.04.2015) proposing the demand of service tax of Rs.1,19,21,936/-. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.30,54,449/- under protest on 28.03.2012. The proposal of the said show cause notice was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Orginal No. 289/12 dated 31.05.2016. However, the appeal against the said order was allowed by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50509/2022 dated 13.06.2022. Subsequent to the said order, the appellant filed an application dated 17.01.2023 seeking the refund of an amount of Rs.30,54,449/- as was deposited at the stage of investigation, under protest. The request in the said application was accepted vide the Order-in-Original No. 04/2024-25 dated 24.05.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 - CESTAT, Delhi (iii) M/s. Modern Threads India Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jodhpur - 2024-VIL-758-CESTATDEL- CE (iv) Executive Engineer (Workshop) M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd. Vs. CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) - 2025-VIL-102-CESTAT-DEL-CE. (v) Alliance Francaise De Delhi Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, Delhi reported as 2025-VIL-136-CESTAT-DELST. (vi) M/s. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CGST, Udaipur - 2025 (5) TMI 644 - CESTAT, New Delhi With these submissions, the appellant has impressed upon its entitlement to have interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of sanctioned refund. Accordingly, order under challenge is prayed to be dismissed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Bombay in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported as 1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bom.). The said order was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as 1997 (94) ELT A151. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also in the of Konark Exim Pvt. Ltd. in Writ Petition (C) No. 4861 of 2013 followed the said decision. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Pricol Ltd. reported as 2015 (39) STR 190 (Mad.) also held that any amount deposited by pre-deposit or during the course of investigation is definitely in the nature of deposit under protest. It has also been the settled position of law that Section 11B of Central Excise Act is not applicable to such amounts. 7. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate authority and such amount is not refunded with 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." The rate on interest in Section 11BB is also not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. (b) Post 06.08.2014 Where an amount deposited by the appellant under section 35F is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of the so-called golden rule of construction that where the words of statutes are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them. A court should give effect to plain words, not because there is any charm or magic in the plainness of such words but because plain words may be expected to convey plainly the intention of the legislature to others as well as judges." 10. In the light of the discussion with respect to the relevant provision about interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under Section 35F and that the period in question is prior 06.08.2014, I hold that the interest can be awarded at the rate of 6% per annum only. Though learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case o....