1985 (7) TMI 114 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty paid by the petitioner to the Union Government for electricity supplied for agricultural purposes.
2. Delay in implementing the order of refund by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
3. Legal right of the petitioner to claim the refund and duty of the Assistant Collector to implement the order.
4. Applicability of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Jurisdiction and power of the Collector of Central Excise in granting relief.
6. Discretion of the Court in granting relief through mandamus.
7. Payment of interest on the refund made to parties.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dealt with a case where the Karnataka Electricity Board sought a refund of excise duty paid to the Union Government for electricity supplied for agricultural purposes. The petitioner had paid a substantial sum as excise duty, which was later found to be exempted by the Government. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund application initially, but the Collector of Central Excise allowed the appeal and directed the refund. However, the Assistant Collector failed to implement the order promptly, leading to the petitioner seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court examined the legal right of the petitioner to claim the refund and the duty of the Assistant Collector to implement the order. The respondent argued that the petitioner's right was "imperfect" and that the Court should decline to assist until the Tribunal made a final decision on the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court referenced Section 35F of the Act and the discretionary nature of mandamus, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector was legally bound to implement the Collector's order unless prevented by a superior authority like the Tribunal.

The judgment highlighted that the Act did not provide for non-implementation of a lawful appellate order based on a pending appeal by the Revenue. The Court concluded that the petitioner had a legal right to claim implementation of the Collector's order and directed the Assistant Collector to make the payment within a specified timeframe. The Court also addressed the issue of payment of interest on the refund, citing previous rulings that interest could not be directed in the absence of an express statutory provision.

Ultimately, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim for refund but denied the request for interest payment. The judgment emphasized the duty of the Assistant Collector to comply with the Collector's order and directed the parties to bear their own costs, with a communication deadline set for the order to be conveyed to the respondent.