9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c, organic chemicals and pharmaceutical products. The petitioner cleared finished excisable goods for export on payment of central excise duty, and on actual export of the goods claimed rebate as contemplated under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide applications as under :- i. 25-1-2000 Rs. 36,718.00 ii. 3-10-2000 Rs. 4,34,712.00 iii. 17-11-2000 Rs. 2,31,161.00 iv. 17-11-2000 Rs. 1,47,878.00 3.2On 5-2-2000, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Vododara sanctioned the rebate claim made vide application dated 17-11-2000 for Rs. 2,31,161/- but simultaneously adjusted central excise duty of Rs. 34,396/- along with interest thereon (Rs. 26,579) as pending Government dues of one M/s. J.J. Chemicals, Vadodara and only the balance amount of Rs. 1,70,186/- was ordered to be refunded. As far as the other application dated 17-11-2000 for rebate of Rs. 1,47,878/- is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the said rebate claim also but simultaneously adjusted Central excise duty of Rs. 46,684/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and interest of Rs. 19,339/- as pending Government due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue cheque after 31st March, 2001 due to revenue drive. So there is no such delay on our part to grant the rebate claim and whatever dues have been adjusted are being made in accordance with law under the provisions of Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944. If they feel aggrieved from the said adjustment they should approach the appellate authority as the preamble of the OIO passed is very clear that it can be appealed before Commissioner (A). It is requested that in future such type of routine cases should not be entertained and the matter of some genuine harassment or an act of the department where no other appellate remedy is available to the assessee should only be entertained as it leads to wastage of some precious man-hours." 3.4The petitioner controverted the averments made in the Deputy Commissioner's letter dated 16-5-2001 by the petitioner's letter dated 21-6-2001 and again submitted a representation dated 21-6-2001 to the Commissioner of Central Excise complaining that in respect of the two separate rebate claim applications dated 17-11-2000, the amounts of Rs. 60,975/- and Rs. 76,023/- had been wrongly witheld. Specific allegations were made in the letter dated 6-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner had not taken any action against the errant and corrupt officer in the matter. The petitioner had, in the meantime, preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the adjustment of the rebate claim sanctioned in the petitioner's favour, against dues of M/s. J.J. Chemicals and against the petitioner's alleged dues in respect of which the petitioner's appeal was pending before the CEGAT. By his order dated 8-1-2002, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the petitioner's contentions and held as under :- "I have carefully gone through the appeal. Prima facie the OIO is bad in law in as much as M/s. J.J. Chemicals and M/s. Vipor Chemicals are independent legal persons irrespective of being one person being a director in one and a partner in other concern. Therefore, the dues pending against M/s. J.J. Chemicals amounting to Rs. 34,396/- + interest Rs. 26,579/- could not be adjusted against the rebate claim sanctioned to the other. Even otherwise the Tribunal vide its order C/13710-11, dated 14-10-2000 in the appeal filed by M/s. J.J. Chemicals has remanded the case back to Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal without any deposit. In the event, the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bate. 4.After this Court issued notice on 8-7-2000 for final disposal, on 22-7-2002 the Deputy Commissioner has passed order returning the amounts of Rs.1,36,998/- and interest of Rs. 2,507/- aggregating to Rs. 1,39,505/- by a single cheque to the petitioner. The petitioner's representative was called by the department on 23-7-2002 and was handed over the aforesaid cheque for the amount of Rs. 1,39,505/-. The petitioner's representative, however, returned the said cheque to the department on the next day on the ground that the cheque amount was not sufficient to cover the payment of interest for the delay involved. In response to the notice issued by this Court, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Pranesh Pathak, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Division-II, Vadodara who is the successor to Mr. H.S. Sharma. Even in the said reply affidavit, attempt is made to explain away the delay and it is stated that the "disbursement of the cheque to the petitioner got somewhat delayed due to administrative exigencies and there was no malafide intention or to harass the petitioner deliberately. It is submitted that in case the petitioner had any grievance in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his matter. Mr. Patel for the respondents is, however, not in a position to state as to what action has been taken by the Commissioner against Superintendent Mr. Chauhan or Deputy Commissioner Mr. H.S. Sharma who is now replaced by Mr. Pranesh Pathak, deponent of the reply affidavit. 7.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the so-called explanation offered on behalf of the respondents for the delay in payment of the rebate claims cannot be accepted. When the assessee is entitled to rebate claims without any adjustment and even the Commissioner (Appeals) found substance in the grievance of the petitioner that illegal adjustments were made and continued against sanctioned rebate claims, the authorities were bound to pay the rebate claims to the petitioner with statutory interest. Apart from not paying statutory interest to the petitioner, the respondents have also not taken any action against the officers who were responsible for the delay in payment of the rebate claims. The petitioner had made reference to the employees who were responsible for the delay and who were either demanding illegal gratification of shielding the officers making such d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-10-2000 4,34,712 4-4-2001 4,34,712 80 14,291 17-11-2000 2,31,161 4-4-2001 1,70,186 47 3,28 17-11-2000 1,47,876 4-4-2001 71,853 47 1,38 24,095 (d) The respondents shall also pay the petitioner costs of this petition which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) in one set. (e) The aforesaid directions No. (b) to (d) shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or a certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. II. If the respondents do not comply with the aforesaid directions within the aforesaid time limit, the respondents shall be liable to pay further interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount/s of interest awarded by this judgment and remaining unpaid on the date of expiry of the period/s stipulated in the aforesaid directions. III. While the respondents shall pay the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner within the aforesaid time limit, the amounts of interest and costs shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
