TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposit and also regarding rate of interest. 2. When the Appeals came up for hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that subsequent to the issue of the Interim Order dated 14.11.2024 and framing of 'Difference of Opinion', similar issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the matter Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax V/s M/s Parle Agro Private Limited in Central Excise Appeal No. 18 of 2021 and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide Order dated 14.11.2025 considered the issue in detail against the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 25.05.2021 in Excise Appeal No.70628 of 2019 filed by the Assessee M/s Parley Agro Private Limited and Excise Appeal No.70674 of 2019 filed by the Revenue. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has varied from 6% to 18%. Considering the long duration of retention of the revenue receipt of the assessee, it has awarded 12%. We do not find any substantial question of law has arisen with respect to payment of rate of interest. Suffice to note that the amount was forcibly extracted from the assessee in the year 1994 and it came to be refunded in the year 2018 after 24 years. 26. In view of such facts and law the question no.2 is answered accordingly. 27. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that in Appellant's case, there is no dispute regarding the deposit made by the Appellant during the investigation which is before determination of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11B of the Central Excise Act, present Appellants cases are not covered under any provision for refund of amount deposited by them during the investigations. From this decision. it is abundantly clear that the original adjudicating authority did not analyze and apply his mind as to why it is not covered under section 11B. It is a non-speaking order without any reason as to the non-applicability of Section 11B. Further submits that the Original refund sanctioning authority failed to examine the provisions of section 11B and the Commissioner (Appeal) did not spell out any reasons as to why the provisions of Section 11B will not be applicable for the refund of "unspent advance deposit lying in the PLA of the account current", whereas an ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istory that they were dealing with and the limited scope and applicability of their decision in the case of Sandvik Asia case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (60) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.)] has observed the following: "48. There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statutory provisions of law as it then stood and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. Therefore, the court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation." 10. Considering the ratio above, it is held that t....