News Update

Requisite Checks for Appeals - Court FeeI-T - Members of Settlement Commission appointed amongst persons of integrity & outstanding ability & having special knowledge in/experience of direct taxes; unfortunate that SETCOM's orders are challenged without establishing them to be contrary to law or lacking in jurisdiction: HCThe 'taxing' story of Malabar Parota, calories notwithstanding!I-T - Unless a case of bias, fraud or malice is alleged, then Department cannot assail SETCOM's order: HCCentre allows export of 99,150 MT onion to Bangladesh, UAE, Bhutan, Bahrain, Mauritius & LankaI-T- Re-assessment vide Faceless Assessment u/s 144 of I-T Act, is barred by Section 31 of IBC 2016, which is binding upon all creditors of corporate debtor: HCPension Portals of all Pension Disbursing Banks to be integratedI-T- Resolution Plan under IBC, once approved, nullifies any claims pertaining to a period prior to approval of said Plan: HC‘Flash Mob’ drive in London seeks support for PM ModiI-T - Once assessee has produced all supporting documents which includes profit & loss account, balance sheet and copy of ITR of creditors, then identity & creditworthiness is established: ITATTo deliver political message, Pak Sessions judge abducted and then released: KPKI-T - Assessee shall provide monthly figures to arrive at year-end average of deposits received from members, interest paid thereon & investments made in FDs from external funds, for calculating Sec 80P deduction: ITATMaersk to invest USD 600 mn in Nigerian seaport infraI-T - It shall not be necessary to issue authorization u/s 132 separately in name of each person where authorization has been issued mentioning thereon more than one person: ITATChile announces 3-day national mourning after three police officers killedI-T- Since facts have not yet been verified by AO, issue of CSR expenditure can be remanded back for reconsideration: ITATIndian Coast Guard intercepts Pakistani boat with 86 kg drugs worth Rs 600 CroreI-T - Failure to substantiate cash deposits by employer during festival will not automatically lead to additions u/s 68, in absence of any opportunity of hearing: ITATGold watch of richest Titanic pax auctioned for USD 1.46 millionGST - There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively - Order cannot be sustained: HCIraq is latest to criminalise same-sex marriage with max 15 yrs of jail-termGST - SCN does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively, therefore, petitioner did not have any opportunity to object to the same - Order modified: HCUndersea quake of 6.5 magnitude strikes Java; No tsunami alert issuedGST - A taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted: HCZelensky says Russia shelling oil facilities to choke supply to EuropeGST - Rule 86A - Single Judge was correct in relegating appellant to his alternate remedy of replying to SCNs and getting matter adjudicated by adjudicating authority: HC20 army men killed in blasts at army base in CambodiaST -Simultaneous filing of refund applications by service provider/KSFE and the service recipients/petitioners for same amount - Applications ought not to be rejected on technical issue when applications filed in time: HC3 Indian women from Gujarat died in mega SUV accident in USST - Court cannot examine the issue, which is only a question of fact and evidence and not of the law - Petition dismissed: HCJNU switches to NET in place of entrance test for PhD admissionsCX - Department ought not to have waited for rebate proceedings to get finalized and ought to have issued SCN within normal period: CESTATGST - fake invoice - Patanjali served Rs 27 Cr demand noticeCus - As Section 149 prior to its amendment, does not prescribe any time limit, the Board vide Circular 36/2010 cannot impose a time limit so as to decline the request for amendment of shipping bill: CESTAT
 
Refund of pre-deposit - Petitioner is entitled to interest for delayed refund of pre-deposit: High Court

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, AUG 07, 2013: NETIZENS may think it is obvious. But the fact is that the department is not very liberal when it comes to paying interest on delayed refunds. Every time, the assessee has to knock the doors of Tribunal or High Court for getting interest on delayed refunds. This is yet another case where the assessee had to approach the High Court for interest on delayed refund.

The petitioner-company was searched by the officers of Preventive Unit and it was alleged that the appellant had sold Draw Twisted Yarn (dutiable) in the guise of Twisted Yarn (exempted). The petitioner deposited cheques for Rs 20 lakhs towards duty under protest.

A show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioners for alleged removal of DTY, demanding excise duty of Rs.1,40,21,719/-. The petitioners, lodged a refund claim of Rs.20 Lacs paid under protest as there was no reference of this deposit in the show-cause-notice. This request of the refund claim was turned down by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise.

The order of refusal of the refund of Rs.20 Lacs was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal ( after Commissioner (Appeals)). Simultaneously, in the appeal against the demand of duty, the Tribunal waived pre-deposit of the duty and penalty on condition that the petitioners do not pursue the refund claim during the pendency of the appeal. Finally the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by setting aside the demand of duty and penalty on the assessee.

A request was made by the petitioners to sanction the refund of Rs.20 Lacs with interest. Such amount was refunded to the petitioner by cheque of February 4, 2004, however, no interest was paid nor was any reference made in respect of the same. It is urged before the High Court that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the said amount of Rs.20 lacs.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

The amount of Rs.20 Lacs had been deposited by the petitioners during the course of investigation towards the duty on Twisted Yarn before the Tribunal. The amount of predeposit was not insisted upon the by the Tribunal as the undertaking was given by the counsel of the appellant herein not to pursue the refund claim till the pendency of appeal and thus, it is apparent that the Tribunal treated such amount of Rs.20 Lacs as predeposit for the purpose of entertaining the appeal.

Moreover, in the order dated October 31, 2000 passed by the Commissioner, it confirmed the demand of duty and imposition of penalty, however, the same was set aside eventually by the Tribunal vide its order on September 3, 2001. The department, therefore, was liable to refund the amount of deposit which was treated and virtually considered as pre-deposit by the Tribunal.

The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. I.T.C. Ltd. (2004-TIOL-112-SC-CX-LB), has held that in the event of refund of any pre-deposit when a question arises of giving interest on the delayed refund of pre-deposit, as provided under the Draft Circular by CBEC & the payment of interest on such delayed refunds beyond three months would require the payment of interest and the same is to be 12% per annum. Period of three months commences from the date of final disposal of the dispute between the parties. The Circular:802/35/2004 dated 08.12.2009 if is also examined, it relates to return of deposit made as per the direction of the Tribunal and it is specified therein that the deposit needs to be returned within three months of the disposal of the appeal.

In the instant case, application for refund was filed by the petitioner on March 29, 2000. However, the amount claimed as refund being the duty paid and continued to lie as pre-deposit. The Tribunal decided in favour of the present appellants on September 3, 2001, and also further held that payment of interest would start running from September 3, 2001. The Tribunal while so ordering to set aside the order of the Commissioner, ordered to refund the said amount. Any delay having been occasioned in refunding the amount beyond the period of thee months, would attract interest. The refund of amount considered as predeposit would be at par with the refund of duty and the interest would be payable on such pre-deposit, as is also clear from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.T.C. Limited.

(See 2013-TIOL-608-HC-AHM-CX)


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.