2010 (8) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hir Kumar and Shamboo Chopra, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  By means of this writ petition, the petitioner claimed the refund of Rs. 7,50,613/- deposited towards supervision charges in excess what was due. It appears that the provision for the payment of supervision charges under which petitioner has paid the supervision charges, has been withdrawn. Therefore the petitioner filed the refu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner. 5. It is further contended that since the amount deposited was not in the nature of the excise duty, the petitioner is not entitled for the interest. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been refunded any amount till date, which was admittedly refundable to the petitioner. 7. He further submitted that the petitioner is also e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioner. The petitioner agreed to accept the said amount. 11. We do not see any justification for withholding the amount after the order dated 19-8-2001 by which the refund has been adjudicated and refundable amount has been determined. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the respondents have illegally withheld the amount refundable and therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X