TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.Kol/Cus(Port)/KS/564/2024 dated 27.09.2024, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the letter dated 08.03.2024 issued by the Asst Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Refund Section (Port), Kolkata, as an appealable order and entertained the same to grant interest sought for by the Respondent. He submits that the refund of the differential Customs Duty was granted to the respondent vide Order-in-Original No.Kol/Cus/DC/939/ARS/2021 dated 23.02.2021. If the respondent was aggrieved by the fact that no interest was paid to them, they should have filed appeal before the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals), but they have not done so. Subsequently, they have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the letter dated 08.03.2024 and sought interest. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that it is not a proper appealable order issued by the Adjudicating authority and therefore the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is an error for entertaining the said letter as an appealable order. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that at the time of granting the refund, the respondent was asked to give an undertaking that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Heard both the sides. Perused the appeal papers and the documentary evidence placed before us. 9. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned OIA has allowed the appeal filed by the present appellant and has held that the interest is required to be granted. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the factual details of the case while entertaining the appeal. We find that the appellant has been following up right from March 2018 onwards for re-assessment of Bills of Entry with several communication by way of letters. Refund claims have been filed but were rejected on account of non-finalization of the assessment. Considering the overall factual details, we find that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is actually following the principles of natural justice to grant the interest to the appellant. 10. We also find that consequent to the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the interest has been granted vide the OIO dated 25.03.2025, taking into account the fact the Tribunal has granted consequential relief and the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the interest to be granted. 11. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merits in the appeal fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment can now simply refuse to pay to the assessees 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 for the assessment year 1978-79, it has been deprived of an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs for no fault of its own and exclusively because of the admittedly unlawful actions of the Income Tax Department for periods ranging up to 17 years without any compensation whatsoever from the Department. Such actions and consequences, in our opinion, seriously affected the administration of justice and the rule of law. COMPENSATION : 46. The word 'Compensation' has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition 2005 page 918 as follows : "An act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury; the consideration or price of a privilege purchased; something given or obtained as an equivalent; the rendering of an equivalen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 50. The assessment years in question in the four appeals are the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Already the matter was pending for more than two decades. We, therefore, direct the respondents herein to pay the interest on Rs. 40,84,906 (rounded of to Rs. 40,84,900) simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 31-3-1986 to 27-3-1998 within one month from today failing which the Department shall pay the penal interest @ 15% p.a. for the above said period." 9. It is not disputed that the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 and Central Excise Act, 1944 are pari materia and, therefore, law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) shall be applicable to the present case. 10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny the proposition of law laid down in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) and the applicability thereof to the facts of the present case. 2022 (380) E.L.T. 219 (Tri.-All) PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER, CGST, NOIDA 39. In this connection reference can also made to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pace Marketing Specialities and Ebiz.Com Private Limited, wherein after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest @ 6% per annum for the purposes of the said Section and, therefore, the same rate of interest is applicable. We do not find any substance in this submission of learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. Reason is that the said notification is dated 12.08.2014. The rate of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit shall be governed by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited (supra) as well as a coordinated Bench of this Court in Madura Coats Private Limited (supra) till a statutory provision in the Act was enacted and a notification was issued thereunder providing for rate of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit. With effect from the date on which the provision came in the statute, it shall hold the field and the rate of interest shall be governed by it. Since the period in question is prior to the notification providing for rate of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit, issued under the Act, therefore, the case of the appellant shall be governed by the law laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Madura Coats Private Limited (supra). 5.2. From the decision of the Hon'ble High Court extracted above, we find that the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entitled to the benefit of the particular provision or Notification since the jurisdictional High Court has not struck it down, even though some other High Court may have done so. In case the conflict of decisions among High Courts does not relate to vires of any provision or Notification, it has been held that the Tribunal has to proceed in accordance with the decision in Atma Steels P. Ltd. in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in the East India Commercial Company case i.e. where the jurisdictional High Court has taken a particular view on interpretation or proposition of law, that view has to be followed in cases within such jurisdiction. If the jurisdictional High Court has not expressed any view in regard to the subject matter and there is conflict of views among other High Courts, then the Tribunal will be free to formulate its own view in the light of Atma Steels P. Ltd. case; however, there is a decision of only one High Court in regard to disputed interpretation or proposition of law, the Tribunal is bound to follow that order since it is not at liberty to disregard the solitary High Court decision." Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Larger ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantial question of law arises for adjudication in this appeal. They relied upon the judgment of High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/s Green Valley Industries Pvt. Ltd. MC (Central Excise Ap.) No. 1/2023 dated 26/07/2023 [(2023) 10 Centax 117 (Meghalaya)] wherein similar issue has cropped-up and the Court has dismissed the appeal of Revenue. He further relied on the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula v. M/s Riba Textiles Limited CEA No. 8 of 2022 (O&M) dated 14/03/2022 = 2022 (62) G.S.T.L. 136 (PH) wherein also similar issue was raised by the Revenue, has been dismissed. They also submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the issues raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgments in the case of M/s Green Valley Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Riba Textiles Ltd. (supra), therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion t....