Commissionerate vs M/S. Harison Industries
2026 Latest Caselaw 1196 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Commissionerate vs M/S. Harison Industries on 20 February, 2026

Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

OD 9


                                 ORDER SHEET
                                 CEXA/1/2026
                          IA NO:GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             SPECIAL JURISDICTION
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE

                   COMMISSIONER OF C.G.S.T. AND CENTRAL
                   EXCISE,KOLKATA NORTH C.G.S.T. AND C.X
                            COMMISSIONERATE
                                    VS
                         M/S. HARISON INDUSTRIES


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
                    AND
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
  Date: 20th February, 2026.


                                                                        Appearance:
                                                Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Adv.
                                                            Ms. Sretapa Sinha, Adv.
                                                                  ...for the appellant

                                                          Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                                 ...for the respondent

The Court: There is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied

with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore,

the delay is condoned. The application being GA 1 of 2026 is allowed.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the

Memorandum of Appeal, application and the order of the Learned Tribunal dated

03.07.2025. The learned Tribunal's order is read as follows:

"7. In the present case, I find that the Ld. adjudicating

authority passed the Order-in-Original dated 05.07.2022,

sanctioning the refund. He should have sanctioned the interest

along with the refund. However, he has not discussed the issue

of interest and hence I find that the said order cannot be

considered as a speaking order with respect to interest. In this

regard, I observe that the ld. adjudicating authority has given

his reasons for not granting interest vide his letter dated

16.02.2023. Thus, under these circumstances, since the

reasons for rejection of interest had been spelt out for the first

time in the purported communication dated 16.02.2023, the

appellant challenged the letter communicating the rejection of

interest. Hence, I do not find any merit in the impugned order

passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the appeal

as not maintainable. Further, I observe that while granting

refund, interest is automatically payable along with the refund.

If interest is not granted automatically, there is no time limit

fixed for claiming the interest. Thus, I find that the impugned

order rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground

of maintainability is not sustainable and hence I set aside the

same.

8. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following order:

(i) I hold that the impugned order, rejecting the

appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of

maintainability, is not sustainable and hence I set aside

the same.

(ii) I hold that the appellant are entitled to grant of

interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit

during the course of investigation till the date of refund.

9. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed on the above

terms."

Perused the adjudication order and from the adjudication order, it is clear

that the monetary limit as prescribed in circular dated 06.08.2024 is Rs.2 crores

and the amount involved in this case is much less than the prescribed limit as

mentioned in the circular.

On merits, this Court also finds no substantial question of law arises from

the order of the tribunal. Hence, the appeal and the connected application being

GA/2/2026 are dismissed.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

(UDAY KUMAR, J.) B.Pal