9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se on the same. The dispute was carried up to the Government of India by way of revision as per the relevant provisions of law which were in force at the relevant time. The Government of India by order dated December 12, 1975 held that aluminum cannisters were ancillary to the manufacture of fluorescent starter switches and that the goods were extruded, but the same were not bought or sold in the market. For the reasons mentioned in the order, the Government of India allowed the revision application. 2. Thereafter the petitioner preferred refund claim for Rs. 53,750/- before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad in relation to the period commencing from October 7, 1970 to February 29, 1976. The Assistant Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner submits that there is inordinate delay in honoring the order passed by the appellate forum. Even after several requests the amount was not paid. Hence the petition was filed on April 8, 1980. The petition has been admitted on June 14,1980. Even so, the amount has been paid some time in August, 1988. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest should be awarded at the rate of 18% to the petitioner. 7. In support of the claim of interest, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this High Court in the case of M/s. Vijay Textile v. Union of India reported in 20 GLR page 944. It was a case of alleged unauthorised levy of excise duty. While upholding the claim of the petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant shall be paid interest at the rate of 6% from the date of refusal of refund with costs of appeal quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. Therein the claim for refund of the Cement Company was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal also maintained the decision of the departmental authorities. In the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the duty was paid under protest and therefore the question of limitation did not arise for refund of duty. Nowhere in the judgment there is discussion with regard to the claim of interest by the assessee and the liability of the department to pay interest. It is only in the last para of the judgment, direction as regards the payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay interest in the operative portion of the judgment. But this direction is in the nature of awarding of costs. In view of the above referred Supreme Court decisions regarding precedents, there is much substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Supreme Court has not decided the issues as regards the claim of interest and rights and liabilities of respective parties for payment of amount of interest. 10. In the instant case, there is another difficulty in the way of the petitioner. When the Collector (Appeals) allowed the claim of refund, he has not directed that the amount of refund to be paid with interest. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner cannot be awarded interest in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is essentially filed for the purpose of execution of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 11. Reference may be made to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Municipal Borough, Ahmedabad v. Vadilal reported in AIR (31) 1944 Bombay page 233. In that case the question arose as to whether the tax payer was entitled to claim refund with interest on the amount of tax illegally recovered. The lower court had allowed the claim of interest made by the tax payer. Beaumont C.J. reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that interest can be claimed only in circumstances provided under the Interest Act. Negativing the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount, it has filed this petition some time in the month of April 1980. As indicated hereinabove, the petition was admitted in July 1980. Even so, the amount was not paid till August 1988. There is no explanation, much less reasonable explanation as to why such an inordinate delay has taken place in making the payment of amount ordered to be refunded. Even after the petition was filed, a period of about eight years has been taken for making the payment of the refund claim. Such an indifferent and complacent attitude on the part of the Government with regard to payment of refund claim cannot be countenanced. Therefore, in our opinion, the respondents should be saddled with exemplary costs. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
