Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

13. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submits that the duty paid under-protest and prior to any adjudication cannot be construed as 'duty' payable under the Central Excise Act. He further submits that unless such an amount is appropriated against a confirmed demand through a proper adjudication order, it cannot acquire the character of duty and remains merely a deposit, retained without the authority of law. He also emphasized that the department has itself acknowledged that the levy was unsustainable and, accordingly, a refund was also sanctioned. Therefore, once it is admitted that no duty was legally payable, the amount deposited under-protest cannot be treated as 'duty' for the purposes of invoking section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. To buttress his submissions, he relied on the of judgment of Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court in The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax vs. M/s. Green Valley Industries Pvt. Ltd. [MC (Central Excise Ap.) No. 1/2023 in Central Excise Ap.No.4/2023 dated 26.07.2023], wherein it has been held that a deposit made at a time when no quantified claim was made could not be equated with duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and such a deposit did not attract the statutory limitation or the interest condition under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, being outside the purview of "duty". He also relied upon the order passed by the Tribunal in M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida (Vice-Versa), 2022 (380) E.L.T. 219 (Tri. - All.).

(i) Whether the interest is payable from the date of deposit of the duty, or from the date of expiry of three months after the date of filing the refund application?

(ii) Whether the Appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of the 6% per annum?

17. Before discussing the aforesaid issues, it would be apposite to first take note of the judgment rendered by the jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in Principal Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax vs. M/s Parle Agro Private Limited [Central Excise Appeal No. 18 of 2021 dated November 14, 2025], wherein an appeal was filed by the Department against this Tribunal's order in M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida (Vice- Versa), 2022 (380) E.L.T. 219 (Tri. - All.), which decision has also been relied upon by the Appellant herein. It is significant to observe that the Hon'ble High Court has unequivocally affirmed the view taken by this Tribunal and, in the process, has conclusively settled the very issues which arise for consideration in the present proceedings.

18. In Parle Agro (Tri. - All.) (supra), this Tribunal held that Section 11B will not be applicable in cases where the assessee has not demanded the refund of duty, such as the revenue deposit in that case. There is no provision in the Central Excise Act, which deals with refund of revenue deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded. I reproduce below the relevant portion of the judgment for reference:

"25. Before adverting to the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act 1944 [Excise Act] relating to refund.

29. It is also undisputed that the Central Excise Act does not contain any specific provision prescribing the rate of interest payable on refund of revenue deposits. In such circumstances, the rate of interest has been consistently determined by judicial precedents, based on principles of equity, fairness and reasonableness.

30. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in M/s Parle Agro (supra), wherein, after examining the statutory scheme and the absence of any prescribed rate of interest for refund of revenue deposits, this Tribunal held that interest at the rate of 12% per annum is appropriate. The aforesaid decision of this Tribunal has been expressly affirmed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/s Parle Agro Private Limited (supra). The Hon'ble High Court has approved the grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum in cases involving refund of revenue deposits, thereby lending authoritative approval to the said rate.