Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 327 - MADRAS HIGH COURTInterest on Refund - Writ petition - the claim of interest was rejected on the ground that earlier refund was denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, meaning thereby that the refund was lying with the Consumer Welfare Fund and was not with the department. Therefore, no interest is payable to the petitioner - Held that:- this writ petition is totally misconceived, and is nothing but misuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner in this writ petition challenged the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 23.01.2007. In the counter filed to the writ petition, it was disclosed, that the impugned order already stood set aside in appeal. The copy of the order was also placed on record. Inspite of order of the CESTAT, the petitioner did not choose to challenge that order in not granting interest. It is well settled law, that no relief can be granted, which is not claimed and qua which there is no pleadings in the affidavit to support the prayer made. It is true, that the petitioner had disclosed in the writ petition, that the petitioner had also challenged the order before CESTAT and that the writ petition was on the plea, that petitioner did not expect justice from the Tribunal. - This cannot be a ground to maintain the writ petition. The writ as framed itself was not maintainable in view of the settled law, that it is not open to the party to continue two parallel proceedings, i.e., appeal and writ petition on the same cause of action. Even on merit, the plea raised by petitioner for grant of interest is not sustainable in law, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Shreeji Colour Chem Industries [2008 (9) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT], and Union of India vs. E.Merck (India) (1994 (12) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). - Decided in favor of revenue.
|