2010 (9) TMI 748 - HC - Central Excise

Demand - the liability of the petitioner was restricted only to a period of six months prior to the date of issuance of the show cause-cum-demand notice as contained in Annexure-1 - The petitioner unnecessarily was subjected to a 2nd round litigation of filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and who naturally set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed for refund of the deposit in the light of the Supreme Court order - As the petitioner had made a deposit of Rs. 15 lacs in terms of the Supreme Court order, hence the respondent no. 3 being gracious enough adjusted the said amount and determined balance outstanding of Rs. 55,795/04 to be deposited by the petitioner under the order impugned - since the determination of the liability is already affirmed under the order of the Supreme Court and all that was required was the quantification of the same and for which the adjudicatory authority that is the respondent no. 3 took precious 15 years Petitioner at the same time would also be entitled to refund of the balance amount together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum calculated with effect from 1-10-1986 in terms of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 20-3-1986 - Personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Assistant Commissioner imposed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of quasi-judicial powers by the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Determination and quantification of excise duty liability.
3. Compliance with Supreme Court's order regarding deposit and interest.
4. Rejection of refund application and subsequent litigation.
5. Calculation of interest and final liability determination.
6. Conduct and responsibilities of quasi-judicial authorities.
7. Unwarranted and protracted litigation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exercise of Quasi-Judicial Powers by the Assistant Commissioner:
The writ petition challenges the ambitious exercise of quasi-judicial powers by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Patna. The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing ayurvedic medicines, was served with a demand-cum-show cause notice for recovery of excise duty and penalty. The Tribunal restricted the liability to a six-month period prior to the notice, and the Supreme Court upheld this order.

2. Determination and Quantification of Excise Duty Liability:
The Tribunal's order limited the petitioner's liability to six months prior to the show cause notice. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15 lacs and maintain a bank guarantee for Rs. 18,86,122/-, with interest stipulations. The petitioner complied, but the Assistant Commissioner did not appropriately determine the dues, leading to further litigation.

3. Compliance with Supreme Court's Order Regarding Deposit and Interest:
The petitioner deposited Rs. 15 lacs as directed by the Supreme Court. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for refund of the excess amount and interest, leading to multiple appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to determine the liability or refund in accordance with the Supreme Court's order.

4. Rejection of Refund Application and Subsequent Litigation:
The Assistant Commissioner repeatedly rejected the petitioner's refund applications on frivolous grounds, causing the petitioner to engage in protracted litigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal consistently directed the Assistant Commissioner to comply with the Supreme Court's order, but the Assistant Commissioner failed to do so.

5. Calculation of Interest and Final Liability Determination:
The Assistant Commissioner's calculation of interest was deemed mala fide. The liability was determined at Rs. 3,34,958.50, but interest was calculated at various rates over different periods, resulting in an inflated final liability of Rs. 15,55,795.04. This calculation was found to be preposterous and not in line with the Supreme Court's directions.

6. Conduct and Responsibilities of Quasi-Judicial Authorities:
The Assistant Commissioner's actions were criticized as either a lack of understanding of legal responsibilities or an abuse of power. The Supreme Court judgments cited emphasized that government authorities should not engage in frivolous litigation and should act fairly and justly. The Assistant Commissioner's conduct was found to be contrary to these principles.

7. Unwarranted and Protracted Litigation:
The petitioner was subjected to unnecessary litigation for 15 years due to the Assistant Commissioner's actions. The court highlighted the issue of unwarranted litigation by government authorities and stressed the need for responsible litigation practices. The Assistant Commissioner's actions were seen as an attempt to prolong the litigation unjustly.

Conclusion:
The court found the Assistant Commissioner's order to be patently illegal and perverse. The petitioner's liability was determined at Rs. 3,34,958.45, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the excess amount with interest. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to determine the liability afresh and refund the balance amount within three months, failing which additional interest would apply. Additionally, the Assistant Commissioner was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- from his personal pocket to the petitioner for the unwarranted litigation.