CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Excise Appeal No. 60268 of 2023 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CHD-EXCUS-001-LDH-APP-108-2022-23 dated

23.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh]

M/s Chandigarh Petrofoam Pvt Ltd ……Appellant Plot No. 565, Industrial Area Phase 9, Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab 160059 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods ……Respondent and Service Tax, Ludhiana Central GST Bhawan, F Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab 141001 APPEARANCE:

Ms. Tanisha, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Shivam Syal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60612/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 21.02.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 05.06.2025 The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Chandigarh, vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant is eligible for interest on refund amount for 15 days only and not from the date of initial deposit as claimed by the appellant.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Polyurethane Foam and Articles thereof falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show cause notice dated 31.07.2003 was issued to the appellant for recovery of duty involved on goods destroyed in fire on the ground that no remission from payment of duty on the reported loss of goods due to fire had been accorded by the competent authority. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and culminated into Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Chandigarh confirming the duty demand of Rs.3,78,279/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 14.03.2005, set aside the said Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal, the Revenue filed appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi, which vide its Final Order dated 18.03.2007, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court also dismissed the Revenue’s appeal filed against the order of the CESTAT. Thereafter, the Revenue filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which vide its Interim Order dated 19.03.2010 directed the appellant to deposit the full amount of duty i.e. Rs.3,78,279/-, which was deposited by the appellant on 24.05.2010. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 26.02.2019 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as not pressed. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund application on 02.11.2020 before the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-1, Mohali and the Deputy Commissioner vide the Order-in-Original dated 17.02.2021, sanctioned the refund of duty of Rs.3,78,279/- deposited by the appellant on the ground that time limitation of one year is not applicable on the refund duty deposited under protest. The Deputy Commissioner, although sanctioned the refund, but did not grant interest from the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 has rejected the appeal of the appellant to the extent of grant of interest from the date of deposit;

hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on records.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order, not granting the interest on the refund from the date of deposit till the refund is made, is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submits that the appellant deposited the amount of Rs.3,78,279/- under protest