TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arising from the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 25.05.2021 in Appeal No.E//70628 of 2019 filed by the assessee and appeal no.E/70674 of 2019 filed by the revenue. By that order the Tribunal has dismissed the revenue's appeal against grant of interest from the date of deposit and has allowed the assessee's appeal with respect to rate of interest. It is thus provided for payment of interest from the date of deposit (on the refundable amount) at the rate of 12%. 3. The present appeal has been admitted on the following questions:- "(I) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in upholding the order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imposed on assessee. The matter reached the Tribunal. Vide its (earlier) order dated 31.01.2017 the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal with the following observation:- "Having considered the rival contentions, we find that as held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and as earlier held by this Tribunal the amounts, which are deposited during the pendency of investigation and proceedings, if the dame are not adjudged as duty, fine or penalty is to be treated as Revenue deposit and the provisions of refund of duty shall not be applicable to the same. The amount which has been adjudged is as per the authority of law and the amount which is in excess of the adjudged amount if retained then such retention of said amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of three months from the date of refund claim made by the assessee, on 02.09.2025. 10. That order was challenged by the assessee in appeal. Vide order dated 28.05.2019 the Commissioner (Appeal), Noida partly allowed the appeal applying the principle laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Goldstone Engineering Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2005 (181) ELT 11 (AP) and Madras High Court in Commissioner of C.Ex. Chennai-II vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd, 2014(306) E.L.T. 26(Mad). 11. The appellate authority also took note of the earlier orders of the Tribunal in Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs Bangalore, 2009 (240) ELT 124 (Tri.-Bang.). 12. That order of the appellate authority was appealed against, both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade had been forced on the petitioner, under threat of adverse adjudication, merely because the order of refund may have been passed later, the assessee cannot be denied interest that is a natural assertion on capital. 16. As to the rate of interest it has been submitted that the findings of the Tribunal is well considered and calls for no interference. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it is not shown to us that the assessee had deposited any amount (later directed to be refunded), either against admission of duty (against self clearance of goods), or against any adjudicated demand or against proposed demand of excise duty (against any show cause notice). That characte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n those governing payment of duty, fines and penalties. To that extent the finding of the Tribunal giving rise to this appeal cannot be faulted. 21. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy (supra) is not in favour of the revenue. In fact is not on the point. There after making deposits of amounts towards payment of duty, the assessee had claimed rebate. The entitlement to rebate inheres in it the liability to pay duty. In other words the claim for rebate may arise only where there pre-exists a liability to pay duty. That liability not only existed that had been discharged by Ranbaxy. Later, the claim for refund had been made. 22. Similarly in Hamdard (supra) after payment of duty the claim for refund had been ....