Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2014-15/2343

Whether interest is admissible from the date of passing of appellate order or from the original date of filing refund claim?
Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE-II Vs M/s SULAKI CHEMICALS PVT LTD
 
Citation:- 2014-TIOL-363-HC-MUM-CX
 
Brief facts:-The respondent herein (assessee) paid Rs.14,26,952/- as Central Excise Duty to RG 23 Part II account. When it was pointed out by the Department that such duty cannot be paid from RG 23 Part II account, the assessee paid equal amount through PLA and claimed refund of duty paid from RG 23 Part II account from the Asst. Commissioner. The Asst. Commissioner granted him refund of Rs.2,96,349/-and rejected the claim of Rs.11,30,603/-as time barred. Subsequently, on appeal the refund of Rs.11,30,603/- was also allowed. The appellant assessee requested for interest on refund of the said balance amount of Rs.11,30,603/-. The assessee's claim for interest was denied by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and also in appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In further appeal before CESTAT, CESTAT allowed the assessee's claim for interest under Section 11BB of the Act. The Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to interest with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund by the department. The revenue has, therefore, filed the present appeal.
 
The following questions are proposed by the appellant as substantial questions of law:
 
(a)   Whether in terms of explanation given in Section 11BB, the order passed by the Appellate Authority becomes an Order under subsection (2) namely an order of refund and, therefore, the date of the order of the Appellate Authority is the relevant date for the purpose of refund under Section 11BB?
(b)   Whether in view of the aforesaid legal position CESTAT is correct in law in allowing the interest on delayed refund u/s.11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
 
 
Appellant’s contentions:-Learned counsel for the appellant Commissioner submitted that since assessee's claim for refund was for the first time allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), interest would be payable after expiry of three months from the date of order of the Commissioner(Appeals) and not prior thereto. In support, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the Explanation to Section 11BB of the Act.
 
Respondent’s contentions:-The respondent contention is that the assessee is entitled to interest with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund by the department.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- Section 11BB of the Act, in so far as it relevant provides that if any duty ordered to be refunded under subsection (2) of Section 11B of the Act to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under subsection (1) of the section, interest shall be paid to the applicant at the appropriate rate, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. Explanation to Section 11BB of the Act provides that where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or any Court, the order passed by such Appellate Authority or Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under subsection 2 of Section 11B of the Act for the purpose of this Section. It is, therefore, clear that the appellate order allowing the refund of duty relates back to the order of the original authority and therefore by virtue of substantive Section 11BB of the Act, interest on the refund amount has to be paid from the date immediately after three months from the date of receipt of the application to the original authority till the refund of such duty.
 
In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by the revenue department is rejected as devoid of any merits.
 
Decision:- The appeal is dismissed.
 
Comment:- The essence of the case is that by virtue of substantive Section 11BB of the Act, interest on the refund amount has to be paid from the date immediately after three months from the date of receipt of the application to the original authority till the refund of such duty.
 
Prepared by: Monika Tak
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