Kerala High Court
M/S.Kairali Handlooms vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2017/21ST ASHADHA, 1939
C.E.Appeal.No. 4 of 2017
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST 21026/2016 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX
APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE DATED 28/2/17
----
APPELLANT/APPELLANT:
--------------------------
M/S.KAIRALI HANDLOOMS
WATER TANK ROAD, CHOVVA, KANNUR - 670 006.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. RAMAKRISHNAN
THOPPIAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)
SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN
SMT.VANDANA MENON
SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND
SERVICE TAX.
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CALICUT - 673 001.
BY SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL EXCISE
THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
&
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
------------------------------------------------
Central Excise Appeal No.4 of 2017
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. aThis appeal arises from the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, rejecting ST/21026/2016-SM filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claim of the appellant for interest on the amount of refund to the appellant.
2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Brief facts are that on 23.11.2007, a show cause notice demanding service tax of `55,67,553/- for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2007 was issued to the appellant. During the course of the adjudication, the appellant Central Excise Appeal No.4 of 2017 -2- voluntarily paid an amount of `37,37,123/- as advance payment of service tax. The adjudication culminated in order dated 16.04.2012 confirming service tax amount amount to `16,54,800/- for the period from 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. Thereupon, the appellant filed a refund application on 23.05.2012. The balance amount of `19,86,509/-, after appropriating `95,814/- was refunded to the appellant by order dated 16.08.2012. It was thereupon that the appellant filed application for interest on the refunded sum, for the period from its date of remittance till date of refund. It was this claim which was rejected by Annexure-D adjudication order which is confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal.
4. Despite the arguments raised, we notice that the appellant is not relying on any statutory provision entitling the appellant for interest on the amount refunded. Added to this, it is the finding in the adjudication order that the payment made by the appellant pending adjudication was a voluntary advance payment and that taking note of the Central Excise Appeal No.4 of 2017 -3- advance payment made by the appellant, in the adjudication order, the adjudication authority has not levied any penalty or fine on the appellant.
Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE