2014 (5) TMI 900 - SC - Indian Laws

Refund claim - Interest - Held that - in the absence of any further appeal, the Department has no other way except to comply with the order as claimed. By a direction of this Court, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has brought to our notice that as on date the balance interest payable by Central Excise Authority, as per High Court s order dated 30th September, 2008, is Rs.69,17,613 - there is no dispute about the said quantum, though, learned Additional Solicitor General has pointed out that the rate of interest, as claimed by the appellant, is excessive, we are not inclined to go into the said aspect at this juncture. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay Rs.69,17,613/- to the appellant - Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Writ petition seeking relief for quashing an order and refund of a specific amount with interest.
2. Division Bench's order setting aside the impugned order and show cause notice.
3. Contempt petition filed for non-compliance with the relief granted by the High Court.
4. Dismissal of the contempt petition and subsequent appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking the issuance of a writ for quashing an order and directing the respondents to refund a specific amount along with accrued interest. The Division Bench, in a subsequent order, set aside the impugned order and show cause notice, allowing the writ petition. The Department did not challenge this decision in a higher court. The appellant then sought compliance with the relief granted, leading to the filing of a Contempt Petition due to non-compliance.

2. The High Court, in response to the Contempt Petition, suggested seeking clarification of the previous order instead of enforcing compliance. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court, where both parties presented their arguments. The appellant claimed a specific amount with interest as per the High Court's order, which the Department acknowledged. Despite a dispute over the interest rate, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay the specified amount to the appellant within six weeks, without delving into the interest rate issue at that moment.

3. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the appeal, emphasized the payment directive to the Department and granted them the liberty to seek clarification on the interest payment through appropriate legal channels. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the interest rate dispute, leaving it to be resolved through the proper legal procedures. The appeal was ultimately resolved based on the terms mentioned in the judgment, ensuring the compliance of the High Court's order regarding the refund amount.