TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... March 20, 2012, respectively. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the respondent, M/s. Electrosteel Castings Limited, holds a service tax registration and entered into an agreement on October 3, 2006, to execute a drinking water supply and distribution project on a turnkey basis for the Kerala Water Authority. The project included construction and maintenance of water supply and waste water schemes. Believing its activities were taxable under commercial and industrial construction services, the respondent paid service tax during the dispute period. However, on October 31, 2011, Tokyo Engineering Consultants Limited informed them that laying water pipelines did not constitute taxable construction services. Consequently, the respondent submitted two refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first claim was filed on January 5, 2012, for Rs. 15,23,691/-. The second claim was filed on March 20, 2012, for Rs. 2,05,01,047/-. 3. The second claim was returned on March 26, 2012, as time-barred, while the first claim was rejected on October 18, 2012, following a show cause notice. The respondent's subsequent appeals were rejected by the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid question is in affirmative, whether the direction of the Learned Tribunal upon the refund sanctioning authority to pay interest @9% is contrary to the Notification No. 24/2014-C.E.(NT) dated 12.08.2014 or not? IV. Whether by entertaining the appeal against the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Park Street Division the Learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction as well as acted contrary to Rule 9 of The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 as well as Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such whether the impugned order dated 04.7.2025 and subsequent orders passed by the Learned Tribunal are without jurisdiction or not? V. Whether the Tribunal order is correct when it seems that the respondent had not revealed all the facts before the Tribunal about the appeal filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeal-I) for allowing interest, rather suppressed the facts to take undue advantage?" VI. Whether an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable against order passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT in miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union of India reported in 2011 (273) E>L.T.3 (SC) in the present case were disposed of within three months of receiving the complete application and supporting documents. Instead, the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court in JSW Steel Limited v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2022 (381) E.L.T. 443 (S.C.), which established that an assessee cannot take undue advantage of its own lapses in failing to submit requisite documents. Interest is not payable when the refund is sanctioned within three months of receiving the completed documentation. 10. The appellant also contends that the second refund claim of over two crore rupees was filed on March 20, 2012, which was way beyond the prescribed one-year limitation period and was thus rightly returned as time-barred on March 26, 2012. The Tribunal's observation that the claims were entertained without the issuance of a show cause notice is perverse and contrary to the records, as a show cause notice was issued for the first application and the second was rejected on limitation. 11. Furthermore, the statutory rate of interest on delayed refunds is fixed at 6% u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in(1988) 2 SCC 299, the phrase "in relation to" is expansive, encompassing everything "concerning" or "connected with" the subject matter. Therefore, the Tribunal is fully empowered to issue consequential directions, such as the payment of interest, to ensure its final orders are not rendered otiose. Furthermore, the appellant never challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction during the proceedings, instead, they filed a report on the merits of the refund implementation, thereby unequivocally submitting to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Raising a new jurisdictional plea at the appellate stage is not permissible. 15. On the merits of the interest on delayed refund, the learned Counsel submits that interest is an automatic and statutory consequence of any refund sanctioned beyond three months from the date of the application. The appellant's contention that the three-month period should be reckoned from the date of the Tribunal's order, i.e., August 9, 2024 is a fundamental misinterpretation of the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) settled that interest under Section 11BB is payable from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the original ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainable and devoid of merits. 21. The primary jurisdictional challenge concerns the maintainability of an appeal under Section 35G against an order passed by the CESTAT in exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. An appeal under Section 35G is maintainable only against an order passed "in appeal" by the Tribunal under Section 35C (arising from appeals under Section 35B). Conversely, Rule 41 empowers the Tribunal to issue procedural and implementation directions necessary to give effect to its final orders or secure the ends of justice. As established by the Karnataka High Court in Toyota Kirloskar (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Pride Foramer (supra), orders passed under Rule 41 are not orders "in appeal" and do not fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus, the present appeal is incompetent and liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground. 22. Even on merits, the appellant revenue's case is unsustainable. The respondent executed a turnkey drinking water supply and distribution project for the Kerala Water Authority, a statutory government body under the Public Health Engineering Department. It is sett....