TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., MS Ingots, and TMT Bars, a team of Central Excise Preventive Officers (hereinafter "Departmental Officers") visited the factory premises of the Appellant on 31.01.2014 and conducted the verification of the stock of raw material and finished goods maintained at the factory premises and that of declared in the periodic ER-1 & ER-6 returns. 1.2 That as per the outcomes of such investigation by the departmental officers, the SCN proceedings were initiated vide SCN No. F.No. DGCEI/BhZu/36001/04/2016/1726 dated 04.03.2016 to show cause as to why the Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 3,38,76,645/-demanded along with the applicable interest under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not imposed and recovered from the Appellant, after appropriation of the amount of duty already paid to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/-. 1.3 That having been aggrieved by the above O-1-0 the Appellant preferred an appeal before Hon'ble CESTAT, and the tribunal after considering the facts and submission made by the Appellant set aside the O-1-0 and passed the Final O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l along with the additional submission which the appellant is going to file within 10 days and accordingly the appellant after getting the hearing on 6 May 2024 has submitted the additional submission which was also acknowledged in the office of honourable Commissioner appeal on 15 May 2024. However, honourable Commissioner appeal has barely notice additional submission and decided the appeal without uttering a single fact against the additional submission. (Copy of the additional submission filed by the Appellant, which was acknowledged on 15 May 2024 in the office of Commissioner appeals has been attached with appeal memo). 1.11 That having been aggrieved by the above-referred Order-in-Appeal the Appellant is filing this appeal on the below-mentioned grounds, which are independent and alternative without prejudice to each other. Grounds of Appeal for the appellants • Because the whole proceeding on the basis of which the order in original, order in appeal is passed has no legs to stand in the eyes of law as the department more particularly, Asst Commissioner, Division- II, Central GST (Mr. Prashant Singhla) has issued the show cause notice F.No.GEXCOM/SCN/CE/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the interest has been granted from the date of deposit till the payment of refund on whole amount. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE vs. Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd. MANU/WB/0276/1992, held when Govt has enjoyed the money of assessee, department must pay interest at the rate of 12% for that period. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sony Pictures Networks (P) Ltd vs. 2017(353) ELT 179 (Ker) has held as follows:- "The Apex Court CCE VS. ITC (supra) confined the interest to 12% and further held that any judgment/decision of any High Court taking contrary view, will be no longer good law. The said judgment is rendered, in my considered opinion under similar circumstances. So also, in Kull Fire works Industries Vs. CCE 1997(95) ELT 3 SC, the pre-deposit made by the assessee was directed to be returned to him with 12% interest." • It is submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Marshall Foundry & Engg. (P) Ltd vs. CGST (order dated 28.11.2019 in Appeal No. E/60916/2019), while discussing the entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is just and proper and that they should pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of collection of the said amount till the date of actual repayment. The Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Dilichand Shreelal (cited supra), has held that the department is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. when the duty collected is unauthorized. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Adarsh Metal Corporation (cited supra), has held that there is no need to file any claim arising out of order passed in appeal and the state is liable to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 12%. The Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. (cited supra), has held that the department is liable to pay interest for unauthorized collections. The Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of East Anglia Plastics Ltd. (cited supra), has awarded interest at the rate of 10% for the use of money collected without authority of Law. The ratio of the above case laws is clearly applicable to the present case. 8. Therefore, we allow the payment of interest from the date of payment of the duty by the appellant to the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal is deposited, the appeals before the Tribunal has to be restored and decided on merits. In these circumstances, the amount deposited by the appellant is to be treated as pre-deposit since the matter had not attained finality during the relevant period. Therefore, refund is to be treated as refund of pre-deposit made when the appeal was pending. There is no dispute that the amounts deposited is duty but this is not the issue which has been taken into account while precedent decisions have allowed the interest at 12% on the refunds claimed in respect of pre deposit. I find that in the decisions cited by the learned advocate, interest at 12% has been allowed. Therefore, following the judicial discipline, I consider it appropriate that interest in this case also is to be allowed @ 12%. Accordingly, original adjudicating authority is directed to workout the differential interest amount and make the payment to the appellants." • Following this decision, the appellant sought a refund of the pre-deposit made during legal proceedings, alongside interest. Despite authorities sanctioning the principal amount, the interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nformed and based on a thorough understanding of the circumstances. • Additionally, it is crucial that the authority applies their mind thoughtfully throughout the decision-making process. This entails. carefully weighing the arguments and evidence presented by both parties (i.e., the 'appellant' & the 'respondent') before arriving at a decision. By demonstrating a thoughtful consideration of the issues at hand, the authority reinforces the integrity and credibility of their decision-making process. • Finally, the authority must comply with the principles of natural justice, which include giving both parties a fair opportunity to be heard and providing reasons for the decision reached. Adhering to these principles ensures that the rights of the parties (i.e., 'appellant' & the 'respondent') involved are respected and that the decision-making process is conducted in a manner that is fair and just. • In summary, by adhering to these key principles, the quasi-judicial authority can ensure a fair and transparent decision-making process that upholds the principles of justice and fairness. But in the impugned matter t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest only on amount of Rs.25,40,748/-, which is pre-deposit as per the Act. Accordingly show cause notice dated 12.02.2021 was issued for recovery of excess erroneously refunded interest of Rs.16,55,345/- which was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023 in which the adjudicating authority has ordered for recovery of Rs.16.55.345/-alongwith interest under Section 11A and Section 11AA respectively along with imposition of penalty under Section 11AC (1(1) of the Act. I find that the appellant has filed the instant appeal against the said impugned order dated 28.02.2023. I notice that in the instant case the short issue to be decided is whether the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 confirming recovery of excess paid interest of Rs. 16,55,345/- is legally sustainable or not. In this regard, I find that the refund provisions are subject to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the Act, the interest is payable if refund is sanctioned after three months from date of application. In this regard 1 find that Board has issued Circular No.984/08/2014-CX dated 16.9.2014 wherein it is mentioned in para 3 of the said circular that the amount paid during investigation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-à-vis Relevant date for interest-There is no provision under Central Excise law to call amount paid during investigations as "Deposit Amount so paid is towards probable "Duty" liability only Further, in adjudication order same is appropriated as duty only Thus in case said amount requires to be refunded after adjudication, provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would be applicable and for interest on delayed refund, provisions of Section 11BB ibid would be applicable Accordingly date of filing refund claim is relevant date for computation of interest if mad after 3 months and not data of making deposit-Section 118 and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (para-5). (ii) 2011 (270) ELT 73 (AP) Kanyaka Parameshwari Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cus & Central Excise-interest on delayed refund-relevant date-duty paid under protest as price not finalized then refund claims filed after price finalized and Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund CESTAT holding that interest payable only from date after expiry of three months from refund claim till the date of refund-Assessee's submission that since duty paid under protest, interest payable from date of pa....