CESTAT Orders Interest on Rs. 20 Lakh Refund Delayed by Jurisdiction Confusion [Read Order]
The bench observed that the appellant had complied with instructions and filed timely appeals, and the denial of interest violated statutory rights
![CESTAT Orders Interest on Rs. 20 Lakh Refund Delayed by Jurisdiction Confusion [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Jurisdiction-CESTAT-Refund-taxscan.jpg "CESTAT Orders Interest on Rs. 20 Lakh Refund Delayed by Jurisdiction Confusion [Read Order]")
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directs the respondent commissioner to pay interest on the Rs 20 lakh refund delayed by jurisdiction confusion. The appellant, Laurel Wires Ltd, had initially made the pre-deposit following a CESTAT directive in 2011. After the tribunal’s final order in 2018, the company sought a refund, which...
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directs the respondent commissioner to pay interest on the Rs 20 lakh refund delayed by jurisdiction confusion.
The appellant, Laurel Wires Ltd, had initially made the pre-deposit following a CESTAT directive in 2011. After the tribunal’s final order in 2018, the company sought a refund, which was sanctioned but without the interest mandated under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, as it stood before 2014. Aggrieved by the above action, the appellant filed an appeal via email with the Commissioner (Appeals) in Nagpur, adhering to the Information Technology Act’s provisions for electronic submissions.
Sadly, no action was taken until the Revenue Department filed an appeal in Nashik, where it was revealed that Laurel Wires had indeed filed its appeal within the stipulated timeframe.
The Nashik Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred, citing the lack of physical submission and jurisdictional errors. Laurel Wires argued that the Nagpur office should have either transferred the case or returned it with instructions to file in the correct forum, and the delay caused by this confusion should not penalize them.
Tax Audit Deadline Is Near! Are you prepared? - Click Here
The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in M.P. Steel vs. Union of India (2015), which allows for flexibility in computing limitation periods under such circumstances.
The CESTAT noted that the appellant may have filed the appeal in the wrong forum due to a jurisdiction issue, but it was submitted on time at Nagpur as instructed and that if the Commissioner (Appeals) at Nagpur lacked jurisdiction, he should have either transferred it to the correct forum or returned it with proper directions. The bench observed that the time the appeal remained with the Nagpur office should be excluded when calculating the limitation period.
Read More: CESTAT Grants Refund of Rs. 8.36 Lakh to Tata Steel BSL Limited, Sets Aside impugned Order for Contravening S.142 of CGST Act
The Judicial Member, Dr Suvendu Kumar Pati, allowed the assessee’s appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed payment of interest on the Rs. 20 lakh refund within two months, as per pre-2014 laws.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
