Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case law/2014-15/2243

Whether interest admissible for delayed payment of refund even in case of amount paid under protest ?

Case:- RATAN UDYOG VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI

Citation:- 2014 (299) E.L.T. 374 (Tri.- Mumbai)

Brief fact:- The appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 255(CRC-1)/2012(JNCH)/Imp-245, dated 8-5-2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-11, JNCH.
The appellant, M/s. Ratan Udyog, Kolkata filed shipping bill No. 2424, dated 21-9-2004 for export of ladies nighties as woven fabrics. Subsequently, he filed another shipping bill declaring the goods correctly under claim for drawback. The case was adjudicated and the goods were confiscated but the appellant was allowed to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.4 lakhs and penalty of Rs.1 lakh vide order dated 11-11-1994. The appellant made the payment of fine and penalty but contested the same before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order No. C11/639/W20/2001, dated 12-3-2001 [(2001 (134) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.- Mum-)] set aside the confiscation as well as redemption fine and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to 10,000/-. Consequent to the Tribunal's order, the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs allowed refund of redemption fine and penalty amounting to 4,90,000/- vide, order dated 29-9.2008. The department was aggrieved of the same and they filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority on the ground of non-examination of unjust enrichment while sanctioning of the refund by the Asstt. Commissioner and the lower appellate authority vide order dated 11-8-2001 allowed the department's appeal. The appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal once again and vide Order No. A/646/2010/SMB/C-IV, dated 16-11-2010 held that principle of unjust enrichment would not apply to redemption fine and penalty and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 9-6-2011 sanctioned the refund of fine and penalty but rejected the claim for interest on the said amount. The appellant challenged the said order before the lower appellate authority, who vide the impugned order has dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellant is before Tribunal.

Appellant’s contention:- The learned counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions.
In the first appeal before this Tribunal, vide Appeal No. C/52/1995 the appellant had prayed for refund of fine and penalty along with interest thereon and this Tribunal had allowed the appeal which would imply that the plea for refund of the amounts paid as pre-deposit along with interest was allowed. The said decision became final and was not challenged by the Revenue before any other appellate authority.
Similarly, when the matter was once again adjudicated by the Tribunal in the second round of litigation, the Tribunal vide order dated 16-11-2010 had allowed the appeal. Thus, the plea of the appellant for allowing interest already stands approved by the Tribunal and, therefore, the same cannot be denied by the lower authorities.
The appellant also submits that as per Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962, interest on delayed refund of the amount deposited under the proviso to Section 129E is permissible at the rate specified in Section 27A of the Customs Act, after the expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority till the date of refund of such amount. In the present case the appellant has been granted refund by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order dated 29-9-2008. However, refund was actually paid to the appellant only oh 9-6-2011 and, therefore, the appellant is eligible for interest under Section 129E as the amount paid by them prior to the confirmation of the demand is only a pre-deposit. The learned counsel also relies on the decision of the  Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) wherein the High Court ordered payment of interest in respect of pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. He also relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of PAC Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 568 wherein the Tribunal awarded interest on refund of penalty amount of Rs. 20,000/-due to the assessee in consequence of the orders passed on 15.3-1998 but paid only on 5-10-2002. He also refers to the Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX, dated 8-12-2004 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs wherein the Board had clarified that pre-deposit must be returned within three months from the date of order passed by the appellate Tribunal or the Court unless there is a stay on the order by a superior Court and if the amount is not refunded within the period of three months the matter will be viewed adversely and default, if any, entail interest liability.

Respondent’s contention:- The Dy. Commissioner appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority.

Reasoning of judgment:-After hearing both the sides and perusing the records and submissions, it is finally decided at the point that in the present case, the refund become due to the appellant vide order dated 12-3-2001 passed by this Tribunal and the refund was also granted to the appellant vide order dated 29-9-2008 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. However, payment of the refund was not made due to dispute in this regard raised by the department and the same was settled against the Revenue and in favour of the appellant vide order dated 16-11-2010 and, thereafter, the refund was paid to the appellant on 9-6-2011. Therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant under protest, which was not challenged, is liable to be returned to the appellant along with interest w.e.f. 29-9-2008. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled for the benefit of interest prescribed under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the period 29-9-2008 to 9-6-2011 and they hold accordingly. The decision relied upon by the appellant in the cases cited supra also supports the above view. The department is directed forthwith to pay interest due to the appellant for the period from 29-9-2008 to 9-6-2011.

Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux of this case is that pre-deposit if ordered to be refunded must be returned within three months from the date of order passed by the appellate Tribunal or the Court unless there is a stay on the order by a superior Court and if the amount is not refunded within the period of three months, interest liability will arise on the same. One more analogy that is drawn from this case is that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable for refund of pre-deposit.

Prepared by: Kushal Shah

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com