##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH Excise Appeal No. 51250 Of 2025

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 630(GS)ST/JPR/2024 dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central ExciseAnd Central Goods And Service Tax,

Jaipur)

M/s Continental Engines Pvt. Ltd. .…Appellant (Machine Division), A-88, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar- 301019

Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), .…Respondent

GST & Central Excise, Jaipur NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur

APPEARANCE:

Shri Priyesh Kasliwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rohit Issar,Authorised Representative of the Department

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: April 01, 2026

FINAL ORDER NO. 50646/2026

S.K. MOHANTY:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

07.03.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that though the pre-deposit amount was returned by the department along with interest, but the request of the appellant for payment of interest for the period from 07.08.2017 to 07.02.2023 was not considered by the authorities. The appellant has stated that the interest amount claimed for the said period i.e., from 07.08.2017 to 07.02.2023 was in the nature of compensation, which should be paid by the revenue, irrespective of the fact that the interest amount of Rs.

2 E/51250/2025

64,62,575/- had already been paid by the department on account of

delayed refund of the pre-deposited amount.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the pre-deposit made by the appellant under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, „The Act of 1944‟) was refunded by the department on 07.08.2017, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and the department had paid interest up to the period 07.02.2023. However, he submitted that since the department did not returned the pre-deposit immediately and took time up to almost six years for sanctioning the interest amount, the appellant should be entitled for the compensation for such delayed payment of the interest amount. He further submitted that the authorities below have travelled beyond the scope of the order dated 10.05.2022 of the Tribunal and as such, the orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained on such grounds. He also submitted that the Tribunal order dated 10.05.2022 has attained finality and thus, the appellant should be entitled for the benefit or further interest (compensation) up to the period of 07.02.2023. To substantiate such stand, learned advocate has relied upon the following judgments delivered by the judicial

forum:

(i) Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune

(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Narendra Doshi (iii) Shri Jagdamba Polymers Ltd. vs. Union of India

(iv) Umang Agrawal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) and ors.

1. 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)

2. Appeal (Civil) 2053 of 2000 decided on 26.07.2001

3. 2013 (289) E.L.T. 429 (Guj.)

4. Writ Tax No. 1202 of 2007 decided on 06.05.2015

3 E/51250/2025

(v) Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. vs.Commr. Of C.Ex., Vadodra-II

3. On the other hand, learned DR appearing for the revenue submitted that while sanctioning the refund of pre-deposit alongwith interest, the department had referred to the provisions of Section 35FF of the Act of 1944 and since under such statutory provisions, the interest is required to be paid from the date of payment of the amount till, the date of the refund of such amount, the additional interest claim made by the appellant, considering the same as compensatory in nature, cannot be sustained. He further submitted that since the Central Excise statue do not provide for payment of any interest on the compassionate ground, the department‟s stand is proper and justified in denying such additional amount of compensation as claimed by the

appellant.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records.

5