1995 (2) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent, dated 31-1-1992 and that of the second respondent, dated 14-2-1992 and to forbear the respondents from demanding interest from the petitioner on the payment of the differential excise duty in instalments. The petitioner Company is manufacturing cement. They had filed a writ petition, W.P.No. 3684 of 1986 seeking the benefit of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hs per month. The respondents have now chosen, by the impugned orders, to claim interest for the differential amount at the rate of 17.50 per cent. The argument is that there is no statutory sanction for claiming interest on the said payment of the differential amount. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner having asked for payment in instalments, and having been abl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was no such order and consequently it cannot be argued that at the time of granting permission to pay the amount in instalments it was made clear that the instalments will carry interest. Learned counsel for the respondents only says that in the normal course when a party is permitted to pay the amount in instalments or after a delay of certain time, it goes without saying that he should pay inte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X