2013 (9) TMI 774 - HC - Central Excise

Refund Claim - Return of remaining amount of sale proceeds - Entitlement to Interest - Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the amount and if so at what rate Held that - The excuse being made of the interim order acting as an impediment cannot be accepted for the reason that it restrained respondent from taking further proceedings which would imply that it could not have concluded the transaction, but nothing prevented it from cancelling the transaction and refunding the money to the petitioner having then found out that the property was under a cloud on account of prior mortgage and having made an assertion in the sale proclamation to the contrary the petitioner was entitled to interest at least from the expiry 15 days of the notice by the petitioner to respondent calling upon respondent to either get the property cleared or refund the entire amount - Taking into consideration the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time 12% per annum simple interest on the amount was granted Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Auction of property by Central Excise Department with encumbrance issue.
2. Petitioner's bid and subsequent legal notice from a bank regarding mortgage.
3. Petitioner's demand for refund and respondent's failure to refund.
4. Entitlement of petitioner to interest on the refunded amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Auction of property with encumbrance
The Central Excise Department conducted an auction for a property without disclosing any encumbrances. The petitioner participated, won the bid, and deposited 25% of the bid amount. However, a legal notice from a bank revealed that the property was mortgaged, leading to a dispute over the property's status.

Issue 2: Petitioner's bid and legal notice
Upon winning the bid, the petitioner deposited a significant amount towards the purchase. Subsequently, a legal notice from a bank claimed a prior mortgage on the property, contradicting the auction notice's representation of no encumbrances. The petitioner demanded a refund from the Central Excise Department due to the misleading information.

Issue 3: Failure to refund and petitioner's demand
Despite the petitioner's repeated requests for a refund and clarification on the property's status, the Central Excise Department failed to take action. The Department cited a court order as a reason for not refunding the amount promptly, leading to the petitioner seeking legal recourse for the refund.

Issue 4: Entitlement to interest on the refunded amount
The court found no justification for the Department's delay in refunding the bid amount to the petitioner. Considering the prolonged inaction and the petitioner's rightful claim for a refund with interest, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court directed the Department to refund the amount with 12% per annum simple interest from a specified date, allowing for additional interest in case of delayed payment.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, highlighting the sequence of events, legal contentions, and the court's ruling on each aspect of the case.