2010 (9) TMI 387 - HC - Central Excise

Implementation of order Order of settlement commission on refund not implemented for 8 months rectification of mistake sought by Revvenue though letters - The request not bona fide - cannot be granted in view of the fact that as yet no notice of rectification prayer has been issued to the petitioner - petitioner cannot be asked to wait for unusually long period to get the amount of refund as ordered by the Settlement Commission Revenue directed to deposit the amount with the Court, so as to enable this Court to make interest bearing investment with any nationalised bank - interest at the rate of 10% per annum till deposit with this Court is made

Summary

Issues:
Seeking refund under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Revenue's request for rectification of order by Settlement Commission; Delay in refund payment by Revenue; Court's direction to Revenue to deposit refund amount with interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a refund of Rs. 2,45,02,687/- as ordered by the Settlement Commission. The Revenue had moved the Settlement Commission for rectification of the order, but the Court noted that the Revenue's approach in seeking rectification was improper. The Court expressed doubts about the Revenue's seriousness in rectifying the order and criticized the delay tactics employed by the Revenue to avoid compliance with the Settlement Commission's order. The Court refused to grant the Revenue's request for additional time to seek orders from the Settlement Commission, citing the petitioner's right to timely refund without interest. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not have to wait excessively for the refund amount and directed the Revenue to deposit the refund amount with the Court within three weeks to enable interest-bearing investment, failing which interest at the rate of 10% per annum would apply until the deposit is made.

The Court's decision aimed to ensure justice between the parties and prevent prejudice. By directing the Revenue to deposit the refund amount with the Court, the Court sought to safeguard the petitioner's interests and address the delay in payment of the refund. The Court's intervention was necessary to prevent further prejudice to the petitioner due to the Revenue's failure to comply with the Settlement Commission's order promptly. The Court's directive for the Revenue to deposit the refund amount with interest underscored the importance of timely compliance with legal obligations and the need to prevent unjust enrichment or harm to the petitioner. The Court's decision reflected a balance between upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of the petitioner in seeking the rightful refund amount as ordered by the Settlement Commission.