AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court and in compliance with the directions therein the Revenue appears to have reassessed 919 Bills of Entry and thereafter, the Respondent filed a refund application on 13.06.2024 seeking refund of excess duty paid by them and the same appears to have been sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No.10/2024 dt. 24.06.2024, it is a matter of record that the said Order-in-Original was accepted by the Revenue without any challenge. 2. The Respondent thereafter, appears to have made another request for sanctioning of interest as well, since no interest was sanctioned by the sanctioning Authority in the above Order-in-Original. The Adjudicating Authority having considered the above request for interest, however, vide Order-in-Original No.25/2024 dt. 31.08.2024 rejected the claim of interest on the refund. A perusal of the said Order-in-Original inter alia reveals that the Adjudicating Authority believed that the claim by the Respondent was not covered under the specific provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 which expressly provides for only 4 types of interest to be paid by the Department i.e. (a) Section 18 (4) - Interest on account of finalization of provisionally assessed Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prayer to set aside the impugned order and to restore the Order-in-Original. The said prayer therefore is not based on any Grounds of Appeal. Reiterating the grounds urged, Shri Sanjay Kakkar submitted that sanctioning of interest at 12% interest was therefore not in order. He would rely on the following decisions / orders of various judicial Fora : (i) Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax And Others [2006 (1) TMI 55 - Supreme Court = 2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC)] (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2013 (10) TMI 117 -Supreme Court (LB) =2013 (296) ELT 433 (SC)] (iii) Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs M/s.VBC Industries Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 142-Madras High Court = 2011 (270) ELT 314 (Mad.)] (iv) Chitrahar Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT), The State of Tamil Nadu - [2019 (11) TMI 170 - Madras High Court = 2020 (79) GSTR 281 (Mad.)] (v) Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dt. 05.12.2023 in the case of CC Vs DD International Pvt. Ltd. [CUSAA69/2023 & CM APPL.48489/2023 (Stay) (vi) CC (Preventive), Odisha Vs M/s.Vedanta Ltd. - 2025 (5) TMI 1466 - Orissa High Court (vii) Sun P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....She would pray for sustenance of the impugned order with a further direction to the Lower Adjudicating Authority to issue interest as directed by the First Appellate Authority forthwith. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the documents on record, we find that the only issue to be decided is, 'whether the impugned order granting a refund of interest at 12% is sustainable?' 7. In respect of the judgments/orders relied upon by Shri Sanjay Kakkar, we find that most of the judgments relate to the granting of interest on interest which is not the case here. In Triumph International (India) Pvt. Ltd. supra, order of this Bench, this Bench has held that the factual matrices of Sandvik Asia Ltd. [2006 (196) ELT 257 SC] are different and further in the very case of Triumph International (India) Pvt. Ltd. the ratio laid down is different since the factual matrix of the case is different. In that case, the exemption to Excise Duty equivalent to CVD by virtue of Notification was claimed whereas in the case on hand the issue relates to classification. Also, the Assessee in that case paid the duty upon being pointed out by the Audit and claimed that the said payment was unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the litigants; the liability is uniform and hence, we are of the view that the impugned Order-in-Appeal has correctly set aside the Order-in-Original. 9. We also draw support from the ratio laid down in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2022 (380) ELT 219 (Tri.-All.)], where the coordinate Allahabad Bench was seized of almost a similar dispute where the tax payer had claimed interest from the date of deposit at a higher rate of interest. The Bench after considering the pronouncements of various higher judicial Fora, had held as under : "30. In the present case, the provisions of Section 11B of the Excise Act would not be applicable. This is for the reason that the appellant was not claiming refund of duty. The applicant, as noticed above, had claimed refund of the revenue deposit. Such a finding has also been clearly recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 31-1-2017, which order has attained finality." Further, after recording developments in law as guided by various Notifications of the Government in this regard, the court held as under : "39. In this connection reference can also made to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of in the case of M/s.Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CRC-I, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, vide its Order dt. 15.10.2024 in W.P. No.13314 of 2024 while relying on the decision of Madras High Court in Global United Shipping (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) has observed as under : "25. The decision of the Madras High Court in Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) [Writ Petition No.17506 of 2019 decided on 15 October 2019])] also supports the petitioner's case. In the context of the provisions of Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, it holds that the intention of the legislature clearly spelt out in the above provision of law was that the interest was liable to be paid after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund and not from the date of passing of the order of refund. The court held that the object behind such provision for the payment from the date of the application was obvious. Once an order of refund is made, the liability to pay the same dates back from the date of its collection. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 Kuil Fire Works Industries v. Collector of Central of Excise [1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the pre-deposit made by the assessee was directed to be returned to him with 12% interest. I have also come across the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-IV [2012 (285) E.L.T. 188 (Cal.), wherein the peremptory directions of the Apex Court in the judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra) was considered and ordered 12% interest, and further held that when the High Court directed the respondents to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular dated 8-12-2004 on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months, it has to be construed that, the Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd., which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in the absence of any statutory provisions in the Act in question. Even though various....