1991 (3) TMI 147 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Dispute over excisability of aluminum cannisters, rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector, appeal allowed by Collector (Appeals), delay in payment of refund amount, claim for interest on refund amount, applicability of interest on refund amount, exemplary costs for delay in payment.

Summary:
1. The petitioner company manufactured Fluorescent Starter Switches, including Aluminum Cannisters, and disputed the excisability of the cannisters. The Government of India allowed the revision application stating the cannisters were ancillary to the main product.

2. The petitioner claimed a refund of Rs. 53,750/- for a specific period, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector but later allowed by the Collector (Appeals) leading to entitlement of the refund amount.

3. Despite the appellate order, the petitioner faced delays and filed a petition seeking direction for payment of the refund amount with interest.

4. The petitioner focused on the refund claim of Rs. 53,750/-, excluding another amount claimed, emphasizing the delay in receiving the refund.

5. A minor discrepancy in the refunded amount was noted, with the petitioner highlighting the delay in payment and seeking interest at 18%.

6. The petitioner argued for interest citing delays in payment post the appellate order, referencing a High Court decision supporting interest on unauthorized duty collection.

7. A Supreme Court decision awarding interest on a refund claim was mentioned, contrasting it with the present case where interest was not specifically directed upon refund.

8. Another Supreme Court decision was cited where interest was awarded on a refund claim, but the court's direction was viewed as related to costs rather than a decision on interest liability.

9. The respondents referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that a precedent only applies to what is decided, not implied, and argued against interest payment based on lack of specific direction in the appellate order.

10. The petitioner's claim for interest was challenged based on the absence of a specific direction for interest in the appellate order, likening the case to execution proceedings.

11. A Bombay High Court decision was referenced to support the view that interest can only be claimed under specific circumstances, with no grounds for interest in the present case due to lack of bad faith by the department.

12. Despite the delay in refund payment, exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/- were awarded to the petitioner due to the government's indifferent attitude, with no additional interest granted on the refund amount.

13. The court directed the payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the petitioner by a specified date, with interest applicable if not paid by the deadline, thereby making the rule absolute in this regard.