9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to pay interest at 18% between the date of seizure and the date of refund on the cash amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- and bank drafts totalling to Rs. 1,71,327/- which had been ordered to be released by an adjudication order dated 29th August, 2006. 2. The relevant facts of this case are that on 29th December, 2004, cash amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/- and ten bank drafts amounting to Rs. 1,71,327/- were seized by the respondent from petitioners under Section 110 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the belief that they were liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Act, as made applicable to the central e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners. 6. While the appeal filed by M/s. Sushi Chem & Plastic Industries was pending before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, on 17th April, 2007 the present writ petition was filed prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) Direct the respondent to pay interest @ 18% on the cash amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- and the bank drafts amounting to Rs. 1,71,362/-, which have been ordered to be released vide adjudication order bearing order in original no. 16/JC/D-I/2006 dated 29th August, 2006, w.e.f. 29th December, 2004, the date of the recovery and taking into possession of the said amount and/or (b) pass any other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice." 7. Mr. Shailesh V. Sharma, learned counsel for pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stly submitted that petitioners' prayer could not be allowed by virtue of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prohibits any suit or any proceedings against the Central Government or any officer thereof for doing any act in good faith in pursuance to the Central Excise Act or rules framed thereunder. According to him, since seizure was directed on the basis of powers conferred by law, no malafides could be attributed to the respondent in seizing the currency. Therefore, according to him, the prayer of petitioners for grant of interest could not be granted. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the file, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of WP(c) 21072/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the petitions challenged the validity of the assessment and for consequential relief for the return of the tax illegally collected. We have not been referred to any case in which the Courts were moved by a petition under Article 226 simply for the purpose of obtaining refund of money due from the State on account of its having made illegal exactions. We do not consider it proper to extend the principle justifying the consequential order directing the refund of amounts illegally realised, when the order under which the amounts had been collected has been set aside, to cases in which only order for the refund of money are sought. The parties had the right to question the illegal assessment orders on the ground of their illegality or uncons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defenses to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction."(emphasis supplied) 16. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors v. M/s. Orient Enterprises & Anr. (1998) 3 SCC 501 has held as under:- "6. In Suganmal this Court has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertion of Section 27-A in the Act by Act 22 of 1995 there was no right entitling payment of interest on delayed refund under the Act. Such a right was conferred for the first time by the said provision. Act 22 of 1995 also inserted Section 28-AA which provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of duty by a person who is liable to pay the duty. Thus at relevant time there was no statutory right entitling the respondents to payment of interest on delayed refund and the writ petition filed by them was not for the enforcement of a legal right available to them under any statute. The claim for interest was in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention by the appellants of money that was collected from the respondents by way of cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
