Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.4 It is submitted that the rate of 12% per annum has been adopted as a reasonable and equitable rate, balancing the interests of both the Revenue and the taxpayer, considering the varying rates prescribed under different fiscal statutes (ranging from 6% to 18%).

4.5 In the present case, interest can be quantified using the following framework:

a) Rate of Interest: 12% per annum (following Sandvik Asia Ltd. and Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.)

b) Period of Calculation: From the date of deposit/payment until the date of actual refund.

a) Parle Agro (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner, CGST-2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-

ALL [para 39 to 42].

b) M/S CHURCHIT INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT). NEW DELHI [2025-TIOL-520-CESTAT-DEL].

c) M/s Batra Henlay Cables vs. Commissioner of CGST [2022-TIOL-69- CESTAT-DEL] [para 6]

d) PR. COMMR. OF CGST, NEW DELHI vs. EMMAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 311 (Tri. Del.) [para 7, 8]

e) Kesar Enterprises v. Commissioner CGST-2022-TIOL-01-CESTAT-ALL [para 12 to 14] 11 | P a g e C/10989/2021

6.1 Next decision relied upon by the party is Parle Agro Private Limited vs Commr. CGST as reported in 2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-ALL and Kesar Enterprises reported in 2022 (380) ELT 319 (Tri. Amd.). This decision inter alia, quoted the decision as reported in 2017 (49) STR 399 (All High Court) in Kesar Enterprises which decision independent of Sandvik Asia Limited case decided in the Writ Jurisdiction that till the time money paid by the assessee was not appropriated, the same was in the nature of deposit/ pre-deposit which was involuntary deposit by assessee since no one deposit huge money without operation of law in tax. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laid down in such cases principle of unjust enrichment will not apply and directed the department to pay assessee interest @12% 14 | P a g e C/10989/2021 after three months of passing of order by Commissioner till amount was actually paid. In the matter of Parle Agro, coordinate bench referred to various decisions including the Sandvik Asia Limited vs CCE Pune (cited supra), the case of Pace Marketing Specialties reported in 2011 (274) ELT 13 (All.) which again allowed 12% interest and also noted in para 39 to 41 as follows:

41.In view for the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the rate of interest varies from 6% to 18% in the aforesaid Notifications issued under Sections 11AA, 11BB, 11DD and 11AB of the Excise Act, the grant of interest @ 12% per annum seems to be appropriate."

It held that amount involved during investigation as also deposited pursuant to interim order passed by the Tribunal was actually refund of Revenue deposit for which no provision in Central Excise Act is exist. Thereafter following various decisions the coordinate bench allowed the payment of refund. Similarly in Churchit International vs CC-New Delhi 2025-TIOL-520-CESTAT-DEL, the coordinate bench treating the deposit as a Revenue deposit and not against any confirm demand, allowed @12% per annum on refund amount calculated from the date of deposit until the date of refund. The order took note of various decisions including Parle Agro and Principal Commissioner of CGST New Delhi vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2021 (55) GSTL 311 (Tri. Del.) in para 16 of the order. It also, inter alia, took cognizance of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuil Fireworks Industries reported as 2002-TIOL-424-SC where the Apex Court directed the refund of pre-deposit with 12% interest. This decision was specifically on indirect tax laws and not on income tax. Similar decisions have been quoted by the appellants which for the want of repetition are not reproduced. This court also took note of decisions in the case in Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd. reported in 2017-TIOL-1102-HC-KERALA-CUS. In view of foregoing, it is quite clear that the interest is liable to be paid on Revenue deposits and has been consistently paid @ 12% by various decisions of this Tribunal as 15 | P a g e C/10989/2021 well as various High Courts. In this context, this Court finds that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts that the interest is grantable even if not statutorily prescribed but as of basis of compensation or delay in refunding revenue deposit is well established by now by various decisions High Courts as well as of this Tribunal. In the instant case, the appellant have made following submissions: