TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the Order-In-Appeal No.06-ST/APPL/LKO/2026 dated 15.01.2026 wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim of interest @ 12% for the refund sanctioned to them. 2. The facts of the case are that the learned Commissioner (Appeal) passed Order-In-Appeal No.544-ST/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 30.08.2024, allowing refund amount of Rs.1,35,72,925/- to the Appellant. On the basis of the said order, the Appellant filed refund claim before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Adjudicating Authority passed the Order-In-Original Bi,11/AC/ST/RFD/STP/SafYeast/2024 dated 19.11.2024 wherein the interest claim of the Appellant was rejected. On appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant submits that in such refunds, interest has been allowed@ 12%. In support of this view, the Appellant has relied upon the decision the Tribunal New Delhi in the case of Gajendra Singh Sankhla, M/s I.P. Singh Construction Co. and M/s P.S. Builders V/s Commissioner of CGST, Jodhpur (Raj.) 2025 (5) TMI 482CESTAT New Delhi, wherein the Tribunal had granted interest @12% on the amount paid as mistake of fact. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Meenu Builders Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur And M/s Nahar Singh Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur 2025 (5) TMI 574-CESTAT New Delhi. Reliance has also been placed on Rajendra Kumar Jain V/s Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e arises is that in the case where service tax is paid by mistake of law, whether the provision of Section 11B was not applicable for grant of refund or not and what should be rate of interest applicable 6% or 12%." While deciding the issue, the Tribunal has allowed interest @12% for the amount refunded. 9. The same view has been taken in the case of M/s Meenu Builders (Supra). We also find that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of M/s Berger Paints India Limited V/s Commissioner of Customs vide Final Order No.75927 of 2026 dated 22.07.2026 in Customs Appeal No.75631 of 2026, wherein, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Madura Courts Private Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondents now states that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi has issued a notification No. 70/2014/Customs (N.T.) dated 12.08.2014 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962 fixing the rate of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of High Courts has been considered in M/s. Atma Steels P. Ltd. and others v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in l984 (17) E.L.T. 331 wherein the Larger Bench consisting of five Members held that, in view of its All India jurisdiction and peculiar features, the Tribunal cannot be held bound to the view of any one of the High Courts, but has the judicial freedom, to consider the conflicting views, reflected by different High Courts, and adopt the one considered more appropriate to the facts of a given case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also indicated that this should be so, irrespective of the fact whether one particular assessee was within the jurisdiction of a specified High Court or the original adjudicating authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cular 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." 5.3. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Larger Bench cited supra, we hold that the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 0....