9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is relief is founded on the allegation that the petitioner - a limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of monoblock pumps. According to petitioner, they filed a classification list in respect of monoblock pumps and claimed that due to their peculiar manufacturing, they are not exigible to any excise duty. In other words, the case of petitioner was that the rate of duty leviable on these pumps was nil in terms of one exemption notification No. 57/78, dated 1-3-1978. The excise authorities did not accept the stand taken by the petitioner and insisted for payment of excise duty. It is the case of petitioner that due to insistence on the part of excise authorities, the petitioner had to pay excise duty under protest. The petitioner then contested the issue before the departmental authorities and contended interalia that they are not liable to pay any excise duty on these pumps in terms of the aforementioned exemption notification. This issue was eventually decided in favour of petitioner at the appellate stage. As a consequence of a declaration granted in favour of petitioner in appeal and it having attained the finality, that no duty is payable on these monoblock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India HC New Delhi, 1989 ELT 279 Orient Enterprises v. Collector of Customs CEAT New Delhi, 1989 (41) ELT 358 (HC) India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Excise, SC, 1989 (44) ELT 423 Shri Virendra Amritlala Thakkar v. Union of India HC All, 1991 (52) ELT 165 Union of India v. Coromadal Prodorites SC Mad. 1991 (51) ELT 214 Sandoz (I) Ltd. v. Union of India HC Bom., 1991 (51) ELT 255 Prestige Engineering (P) Ltd. v. Union of India HC All., 1991 (53) ELT 299 Rubber Products Ltd. v. Union of India HC Bom. and 1991 (51) ELT 325 Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. v. Union of India HC Bom. urged that the claim of the petitioner towards interest is not only genuine but bonafide and legal as well. According to learned counsel, the decisions cited by him supra, were also dealing with the same issue which is involved in this case and in all these cases the High Court and in some cases Supreme Court was pleased to award interest to the assessee. It was urged that writ does lie even in cases where only a claim of interest is made. It was also urged that in the peculiar facts of this case, where, the amount of duty was not payable since inception but was paid under protest, a claim for interest is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case also the writ was filed claiming interest only on the delayed refund of the duty paid by the assessee towards custom duty. Indeed, precisely the question posed by their Lordships of Supreme Court for the decision was this:- The common question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the relief of payment of interest on delayed refund of the amount paid by the assessee towards the custom duty, redemption, fine and penalty under the Custom Act was maintainable? After posing the aforesaid question, their Lordships then examined the issue in the context of earlier decision of Apex Court and eventually held that no writ lies in a case of this nature - namely where the petitioner (assessee) has only claimed a relief of interest by way of mandamus. This is what their Lordship ruled:- The Court has emphasised that there was no legal right in the appellant who had filed the writ petition to claim refund under the relevant statute. In the present case also till the insertion of Section 27A in the Act by Act 22 of 1995 there was no right entitling payment of interest on delayed refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an identical issue, I have no hesitation in dismissing this writ as not maintainable for the simple reason that this writ is also for claiming only an interest on delayed refund of excise duty. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Orient Enterprises supra is per incurium because according to learned counsel earlier decisions of Supreme Court on this issue where interest was awarded were rendered by larger Bench and secondly, those decisions still hold the filed. I do not agree to this submission. The cases on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner was 1985 (19) ELT 3 (SC) and 1989 (41) 358 (SC). Perusal of these two decisions clearly show that firstly these two decisions were rendered by Bench of two Hon'ble Judges and secondly, these decisions turned on their own facts. So far as the case reported in 1985 (19) ELT 3 (SC) was concerned, it was a case where petition was filed in High Court questioning the validity of the levy of excise on certain items manufactured by the assessee. The issue was then decided in favour of assessee by the High Court. When the matter went to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
