News Update

ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersBiden says migration has been good for US economyUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
ST - Refund matured only as result of Tribunal's order, therefore, there is no question of granting interest for period prior to date of order: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 11, 2018: THE appellant deposited the adjudged dues of duty, interest and 25% penalty confirmed by order-in-original dated 30.6.2011. In appeal before Tribunal they succeeded and, therefore, filed a refund claim in respect of the amount deposited.

Refund was granted but without any interest.

Aggrieved against denial of interest, an Appeal was filed but the Commissioner(A) did not rule in their favour.

The matter is now in the CESTAT.

The appellant submitted that they are entitled for interest right from the date of deposit of the amount in view of the apex court decision in ONGC Ltd. - 2007-TIOL-138-SC-CUS.

The AR submitted that the refund became mature only after the demand order was set aside by the Tribunal and since the refund was sanctioned within three months from the date of filing application u/s 11B, no interest is payable. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX, Indian Thermoplastics (P) Ltd. - 2003-TIOL-234-CESTAT-DEL-LB.

The Bench considered the submissions and inter alia observed –

+ On plain reading of Section 11BB, the interest is payable from three months from the date of application. Except the provision of Section 11BB, there is no provision by which the interest can be granted from the date of deposit.

+ This Tribunal, being a creature under the statute of Central Excise Act, cannot go beyond the statutory provision made under that Act. Therefore, the interest is not payable from the date of deposit, but it is payable only after three months of filing the application.

After distinguishing the case law(s) cited by the appellant, the CESTAT adverted to the provision of Section 11B(5)(B)(ec) of the CEA, 1944 defining 'relevant date' which reads:-

"(ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction."

Thereafter, the Tribunal observed -

+ The 'relevant date' means in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction.

+ As per the above provision, the refund becomes matured only as a consequence of the Appellate Tribunal's order. When the refund itself is not matured prior to the date of Appellate Tribunal's order, there is no question of interest for the period prior to the date of order.

Holding that the appeal does not survive, the same was dismissed.


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.