9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, we are convinced that the claim of the petitioner would fall within clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 11B and therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest from the date on which the duty is paid under protest. It is to be examined that the petitioner was not liable to pay duty but however, on the insistence by the Department, paid duty under protest. Therefore, these provisions cannot be construed to apply to the duty paid under protest and deny the petitioner interest on the amounts so collected by the Department. It is well settled that while interpreting a statute as to the benefit to be given either to the State or to a citizen, courts have held the statute has to be interpreted in favour of the citizen when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivity. Despite the petitioner bringing it to the notice of the customs authority that the activity is not manufacturing activity, insisted payment of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 4,16,96,031/-. Under compelled circumstances, the petitioner paid the duty under protest. 3.The petitioner later moved this court by way of Writ Petition No. 5048 of 1998 seeking a direction to declare that the respondents are not entitled to levy and collect excise duty on the activity undertaken by the petitioner. The matter was contested and this court while disposing of the Writ Petition by an order dated 27-2-1998 declared that the activity undertaken by the petitioner is not a manufacturing activity and these goods are not taxable goods. 4.Basing on the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any justifying reasons. Counsel also stated while drawing our attention to the provisions of the Act, that when excise duty is collected under protest, provisions under Section 11B would not apply and pleaded issuance of appropriate directions. 7.In support of his contentions, he relied on decisions reported in Redihot Electricals v. Union of India - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 253 (Del.) and Union of India v. Metal Distributors Limited. - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 196 (Bom.). 8.The learned Standing Counsel on the contrary stated according to the scheme of the Act, interest is not payable if the refund is ordered within three months from the date of application. Counsel stated that after the judgment rendered by this court an application was filed and thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty." 10.A combined reading of these provisions, in our considered view, though it could be said as stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, the second proviso to Section 11B is applicable to only limitation aspect. However, the provision under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 11B would say the relevant date and as such, we are convinced that the claim of the petitioner would fall within clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 11B and therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest from the date on which the duty is paid under protest. It is to be examined that the petitioner was not liable to pay duty but however, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
