2002 (8) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund of interest amount on excess customs duty illegally collected.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents for a refund of interest amount due on excess customs duty collected. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition regarding the assessable value of an imported vessel, claiming depreciation should be allowed at 30% from the original weight. The court had passed interim orders allowing dismantling of the ship on payment of customs duty. Subsequent appeals and orders led to the petitioner depositing a certain amount with the court, which was later transferred to the Department. The Supreme Court clarified that the interest accrued on the deposited amount would be kept with the Registrar pending further orders. The CEGAT later directed a re-calculation of the duty amount. The petitioner filed a refund application, which was rejected as time-barred. The Department's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. The petitioner requested a refund following the dismissal, but it was denied pending the outcome of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Against the rejection of the refund claim, the petitioner appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal stating that the limitation clause would not be applicable. The petitioner then demanded a refund with interest, which was partially granted. The petitioner challenged the rejection of interest before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision. The petitioner then appealed to CEGAT, which was pending. The petitioner filed a contempt petition before the High Court, which was admitted and pending. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by filing an appeal before CEGAT, which was already availed of.

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to interest accrued on the refund amount as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Despite specific directions from the Supreme Court, the petitioner had to file multiple applications and appeals. The court found the rejection of the claim unjust and invalid. The court directed the respondent authorities to pay the interest accrued on the duty amount to the petitioner at the rate of 12% p.a. The authorities were instructed to make the payment by a specified date, with provisions for additional interest in case of default. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.