Shri Rathi Steel Ltd.  vs. CCE

Appeal No. E/70194/2021 (SM)

F.O. NO. 70338/2024 (SM) DT.07.06.2024

*EX – ISSUE*: *Interest on Refund of Interest* – The case of the department was that the appellant had taken Cenvat Credit on the basis of fake invoices issued by traders. During investigation, due to pressure of department appellants reversed the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.39,22,715 along with interest of Rs.18,07,904 in March 2009.   A Show Cause Notice dt. 13.04.2009 was issued,  Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty vide Order-in-Original dt.16.01.2010.  Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal dt.27.08.2010. The Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the appeal vide F.O NO. A/70454/2017-SM (DR) dt.16.02.2017 and set aside the OIA dt.27.08.2010. 

Appellant filed a letter for refund of Rs.57,30,616 (39,22,715 + 18,07,904) along with interest thereon.  The Assistant Commissioner vide OIO dt. 28.07.2017 sanctioned refund amounting to Rs.57,30,616 (39,22,715 + 18,07,904) however interest did not pay accrued on Rs. 57,30,616.  Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned OIA dt.18.05.2018 also rejected the appeal.  In appeal Tribunal remanded the matter vide F.O dt.14.01.2020 with direction to decide the claim of interest. Again the adjudication authority rejected the claim of interest vide OIO dt.12.06.2020.  The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed and allowed the interest on Rs.39,22,715 from the date of deposit to the date of refund vide order dt.25.02.2021 however he did not allow interest on Rs.18,07,904 and held that there is no provision for payment of compensatory interest on interest. 

* Jwaria Kainaat and Bipin Garg (Advocate), BAVM Legal, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi* – appeared and argued.  They submitted that the amount is amount deposited whether for duty or interest on duty.  The government has taken benefit of this amount whereas the appellant suffered it and prayed that the appellants are entitled to get interest on Rs.18,07,914 @ 12% from the date of deposit and relied upon the number of judgements *(i)* Indore Treasure Market City Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE F.O. dt.11.01.2024, *(ii)* Impressive Management Solution F.O. dt.06.04.2023, *(iii)* Kumawat Contractors  F.O. dt.16.01.2024, *(iv)* Raghuveer Metal Industries Ltd. F.O. dt.07.12.2023. etc. The CESTAT Allahabad presided by Mr. P.K.  Choudhary Member (J), in F.O. NO. 70338/2024 (SM) DT.07.06.2024, held that the amount deposited during investigation will be entitled to refund along with interest.  Such amount deposited is neither duty nor interest and refered CBEC Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX dt.16.09.2014 *“5 – Refund of pre-deposit”*.  The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)  is set aside as far as denying the interest on Rs.18,07,914 and appeal is allowed.  The adjudicating authority is directed to grant interest upon the said amount, from the date of deposit till the date of refund @ of 12% p.a. which has to be given within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

Seeks to amend the Notification no. 02/2017-CT dated 19.06.2017 with effect from 5th August, 2023

Seeks to amend Notification No. 02/2017-CT dated 19th June, 2017 to assign district of Kotputli-Behror to CGST Alwar Commissionerate

Vikas Singh vs. CCE

Appeal No. ST/54887/2023 (SM)

F.O. NO. A/55776/2024 (SM) DT.17.05.2024

*ST – ISSUE*: Demand on 26AS – information received form third party as received information from income tax department during 2012-13, appellant received total income of Rs.34,43,895 on which TDS was deducted u/s 194H & 194H *Jwaria Kainaat (Advocate), BAVM Legal, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi* – appeared and argued.  The CESTAT New Delhi presided by Mr. Anil Choudhary Member (J), in F.O. NO. A/50678/2022 (SM) DT.03.08.2022, held that there is no corroboration of the allegation of revenue with the record of appellant nor there is any admission of clandestine transaction by the appellant.  Third party record are not corroborated and unsubstantiated.  Third party record and the statement of Director Pankaj Agarwal of PIL can not be used against the appellant both for non-joinder of the parties and failure on the part of revenue to examine Shri Pankaj Agarwal as its witness.  The Counsel relied upon (i) Rooplaxmi Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CCE *2020-TIOL-953-CESTAT-DEL* (ii) Sarthak Ispat (P) Ld. Vs. CCE *2020-TIOL-1314-CESTAT-DEL* and (iii) Manmeet Ispat vs. CCE [2019 (368) ELT 1101 (Tri)].  Appeal allowed with consequential relief.

Seeks to amend No. 18/2022-Central Excise, dated the 19th July, 2022 to increase the Special Additional Excise Duty on production of Petroleum Crude.

Seeks to extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR-1, for the month of March 2024

Seeks to extend the timeline for implementation of Notification No. 04/2024-CT dated 05.01.2024 from 1st April, 2024 to 15th May, 2024

Seeks to provide waiver of interest for specified registered persons for specified tax periods