Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, P.M. MANOJ, JJ
THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE – Appellant
Versus
M/S.SONY PICTURES NETWORKS INDIA PVT.LTD. – Respondent
WA 1868/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SREELAL N. WARRIER
For the Respondents: SRI.SHAJI THOMAS, SRI. KUMAR HARSHAVARDHAN
The court ruled that appeals regarding interest on refunds are not maintainable if the disputed amount is below the prescribed threshold.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act - Interest on delayed refund - The court found that the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund of the pre-deposit amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of three months from the date of the favourable order received by the Appellate Tribunal till the date of refund. (Paras 2-3)
(B) Maintainability of appeal - The court ruled that the appeal was not maintainable as the disputed amount was below the threshold prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a judgment regarding the maintainability of a claim for differential interest on a pre-deposit amount. The respondent had claimed interest on a delayed refund following a favourable order from the Appellate Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Appeal as not maintainable due to the amount being below the prescribed threshold for appeals.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appeal regarding the interest rate was maintainable given the disputed amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the disputed amount was less than the threshold set by the Central Board, the appeal could not be maintained.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal's maintainability was questioned due to the low disputed amount. (Para 2) |
| 2. the court dismissed the appeal as it did not meet the threshold requirement. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Writ Appeal filed by the Union of India impugns a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.04.2017 in WP(C).No.39089 of 2016.
2. Shorn of unnecessary factual details, the brief issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is one relating to its maintainability, especially since the disputed amount in this appeal is only in an amount of Rs.93,58,557/-. The said account represents the differential 6% interest on the refund of the pre-deposit amount of Rs.1,15,15,204/- that was paid by the respondent assessee as pre-deposit while preferring an appeal against an order of the Assessing Authority confirming a differential duty demand consequent to the cancellation of the EPCG licence under cover of which the assessee had imported goods at concessional rate of duty.
3. It is not in dispute before us that pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court to the Department to consider the application for refund of pre-deposit that was paid by the assessee, the Department refunded the pre- deposit amount. The assessee, thereafter, claimed interest on the delayed refund of the pre-deposit amount. In the absence of any response from the Department the assessee approached this Court through the Writ Petition aforementioned, where this Court, following the decisions of the Supreme Court, found that the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of three months from the date of the favourable order received by the Appellate Tribunal till the date of refund of the pre-deposit amount.
In the appeal before us, the limited prayer of the appellants is for confining the rate of interest to 6% as contemplated in the various notifications issued from time to time under the Customs Act . It is not in dispute that interest at the rate of 6% on the pre-deposit amount was paid to the respondent assessee. The differential 6% interest works out to the figure of Rs.93,58,557/- indicated above. This being less than the threshold amount prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes for the pursuit of appeals before the High Court, we are of the view that the Writ Appeal preferred by the revenue seeking the relief of confining the interest to 6% cannot be maintained. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. The appellants shall disburse the disputed amount of interest to the respondent assessee within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
