TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Further, no interest on the delayed payment of interest (i.e., interest on interest) was allowed. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:- "6. From the facts narrated above, it is observed that the refund sanctioning authority/adjudicating authority while granting refund of Rs.15,00,000/- vide impugned order, relied on the statutory provisions regarding interest on refund amount and date of refund application. The appellant has contended that they are eligible for interest @12% p.a. as mentioned in judicial pronouncement in case of Indo Rubber and Plastic Works Versus Commr. of Customs, New Delhi, PR. Commr of CGST, New Delhi Versus Emmar Mgf. Construction Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, I observe that the Central Excise/Service Tax authorities can only process the refund clam under provisions of Central Excise Act/Finance Act and the departmental authorities have no jurisdiction to go beyond the provisions made under the Act and the matter relating to interest on delayed refunds, as in the instant case, has to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA), whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt's request of granting interest @12 per annum is not maintainable and interest cannot be granted more than the rate prescribed under the statute i.e. Central Excise Act, 1944. I find that the rate of interest is statutorily prescribed under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with relevant Notification issued there-under in this regard, according to which the interest shall be paid to that applicant at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette In case of Central Excise cases the rate of 6% per annum was fixed vide Notification No 24/2014CE(NT) dated 12.08 2014. Therefore, the departmental officer is bound to follow the statutory provision strictly and therefore, no interest more than 6% p.a can be granted. Thus in the instant case, I hold that the Commissioner (appeals) being a creature of a statute of the Central Excise Act, 1994 cannot decide the rate of interest out of the statutory provisions and cannot decide anything beyond the provisions of the statute of the Central Excise Act, 1994 Further, as regards the period of interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in case of COLLECTOR OF C EX, CALCUTTA Versus ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS-2004 (170) E.LT 135 (S.C.) in Civil Appeal Nos. 4502-4503 of 1998, decided on 21-7-2004. Where the Hon'ble Court at para-14 held that: 14. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become focus "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 10. Without prejudice to above, it is noticed that Commissioner (Appeal) vide its order dated 08.01.2025 allowed the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....granted on the entire deposited amount along with interest, not merely as per statutory provisions but on equitable considerations. * In Eastern Coils Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-I, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 290 (Cal.), the Hon'ble High Court, in similar circumstances, allowed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of pre-deposit (refer Para 14). 4. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR), on the other hand, relied upon the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act to justify the grant of interest at the rate of 6%. She further placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, reported in 2013 (10) TMI 117 (S.C.), wherein, upon consideration of the earlier judgment in Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported in 2006 (1) TMI 55 (S.C.), it was held that only such interest as is specifically provided under the statute can be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue, and no additional interest on such statutory interest is admissible. Accordingly, the Learned AR also emphasized....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings of decision of Churchit International (supra). This court therefore, is inclined to follow the same and directs that interest shall be paid on the deposit made of 5 Crore which has since been refunded by the department. Such interest shall be calculated @ 12% from the date of making the deposit till the date of repayment. Appeal allowed in above terms." 5.1 The reasoning in the aforesaid decisions is based on a detailed consideration and analysis of the relevant case laws on the issue, culminating in the conclusions drawn therein. Further, in the case of Patel Labour Contractors Pvt. Limited, the conclusions have been recorded in paras 5 to 5.4, which are reproduced hereinbelow: 5. I have heard the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and learned AR for the department and perused the record. In M/s. Fujikawa Power and M/s. Kenzo International vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh - 2019 (11) TMI 1997 - CESTAT Chandigarh, the CESTAT Chandigarh has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited (supra). The Tribunal has quoted para 45 of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in said case which is being reproduce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw." Relying upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has observed that as the Hon'ble Apex Court answered the issue holding that the assessee is entitled to claim interest from the date of payment of initial amount till the date of its refund, therefore, the appellants, in the instant case, are entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of amount from the date of its deposition till its realization. 5.2 The interest on the said delayed refund is also payable at the rate of 12% as held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Limited - 2017 (353) ELT 179 (Kerala). The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:- "14. Now, the sole question remains to be considered is what is the nature of interest that the petitioner is entitled to get. As discussed above in the judgment Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC (supra), the Apex Court 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 Kuil Fire Works....