TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imposed on the appellant. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and by a stay order dated 12.04.2010 the appellant submitted a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi refused to interfere with the decision of this Tribunal asking the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs which was paid by the appellant on 29.10.2010. Vide final order dated 07.08.2015 the adjudication order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for re-computation of demand in respect of goods sold to NCC/Kendriya Bhandaar and reduce the penalty on the appellant from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. An appeal was filed against the said order before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by the respondents which was dismissed. The appellant continued to write to the respondent during the intervening period, that is, from 2015 to 2023 for compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 07.08.2015. But the said request was not entertained. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. 3. The Revenue submitted that the said order has been complied with on 23.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting authority itself vide order dated 28.12.2020 but without interest. The said findings have been confirmed also with respect to the denial of the interest. I peruse from the order under challenge that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the changes/amendment that has been incorporated in Section 35 and Section 35FF of the Finance Act and has denied the interest holding that the amount in question was paid before said amendment came into existence. 9. To adjudicate the correctness of those findings, Section 35F and 35FF, pre and post amendment is reproduced as below: Section 35F in the Central Excise Act, 1944 35F. Deposit, pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied. - Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: Provided that where in any particular case, the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or the Appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pursuance of the decision or order appealed against; (iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against: Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed rupees ten crores: Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section "duty demanded" shall include,- (i) amount determined under section 11D; (ii) amount of erroneous Cenvat credit taken; (iii) amount payable under rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 or the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 or the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Section 35FF in the Central Excise Act, 1944 35FF. Interest on delayed refund of amount deposited under the proviso to section 35F. - Where an amount deposited b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has examined all said decisions and thereafter observed the issue of grant of interest in terms of Section 243 of Income Tax Act as under: 15. For better appreciation, section 243 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reproduced as under:- "243. Interest on delayed refunds- (1) if the Income tax officer does not grant refund- (a) In any case where the total income of the assessee does not consist solely of income from interest on securities or dividend, within three months from the end of the month in which the total income is determined under this Act, and (b) In any other case, within three months from the end of the month in which the claim for refund is made under this Chapter, the Central Government shall pay the assessee simple interest at (twelve) per cent per annum on the amount directed to be refunded from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months aforesaid to the date of the order granting the refund. Explanation: If the delay in granting the refund within the period of three months aforesaid is attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould be entitled to compensation for this period of delay. The High Court has failed to appreciate that while charging interest from the assesses, the Department first adjusts the amount paid towards interest so that the principle amount of tax payable remain outstanding and they are entitled to charge interest till the entire outstanding is paid. But when it comes to granting of interest on refund of taxes, the refunds are first adjusted towards the taxes and then the balance towards interest. Hence as per the stand that the Department takes they are liable to pay interest only upto the date of refund of tax while they take the benefit of assesses funds by delaying the payment of interest on refunds without incurring any further liability to pay interest. This stand taken by the respondents is discriminatory in nature and thereby causing great prejudice to the lakhs and lakhs of assesses. Very large number of assesses are adversely affected inasmuch as the Income Tax Department can now simply refuse to pay to the assesses amounts of interest lawfully and admittedly due to that as has happened in the instant case. It is a case of the appellant as set out above in the instant case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 1986 and even prior to. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister for Finance for his perusal and further appropriate action against the erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. 49. By allowing this appeal, the Income-tax Department would have to pay a huge sum of money by way of compensation at the rate specified in the Act, varying from 12% to 15% which would be on the high side. Though, we hold that the Department is solely responsible for the delayed payment, we feel that the interest of justice would be amply met if we order payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date it became payable till the date it is actually paid. Even though the appellant is entitled to interest prior to 31.03.1986, learned counsel for the appellant fairly restricted his claim towards interest from 31.03.1986 to 27.03.1998 on which date a sum of Rs.40,84,906/- was refunded. 50. The assessment years in question in the four appeals are the assessment years 1977-78, 197879, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Already the matter was pending for more than two decades. We, therefore, direct the respondents herein t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. (supra) rate of interest is to be confined to 12%. I am also bound to follow the same. Therefore the interest that is liable to be paid by the respondents as per the directions of this Court in Ext. P12 judgment is fixed at 12% per annum. 15. Taking note of the compendious circumstances and reckoning the law, there will be a direction to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at 12% from the date of expiry of three months from 18-11- 2002, to the amount of refund already made, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting any interest paid." 20. Further, the same view was taken in the case Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (260) ELT 274 (Tri.-Ahmd.), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I notice that appellants deposited amount in September, October and in November 2004, as per the directions of the department. In September 2004, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had dismissed the SCA filed by the appellants against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal for fai....