Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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