9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of manufacture of ayurvedic medicines. One of such medicine being manufactured by the petitioner is marketed in the name of "Dant Manjan Lal". The petitioner was served with a demand-cum show cause notice dated 16-7-1981 (Annexure-1) issued by the Assistant Collector (Preventive), Central Excise, Patna requiring him to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 18,86,122/- be not recovered and penalty be not imposed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. The said demand was confirmed on 26-8-1982. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), New Delhi giving rise to Appeal No. ED (SB) 248 of 1982. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by the Tribunal [1985 (22) E.L.T. 844 (Tri-Del.)] in the following terms : "In view of our findings above, we order that M/s. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited, Patna shall only pay the duty on clearances on the product 'Dant Manjan Lal' effected by them during the period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice dated 16th July, 1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for refund of the deposit in the light of the Supreme Court order. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24-12-2007 as found at Annexure-3 to the writ petition was challenged by the Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of by order dated 7-5-2008 (Annexure-4) with directions to the original authority to take steps for determination of the liability/refund in terms of the Supreme Court order. The petitioner again filed an application for refund before the respondent no. 3 on 4-8-2008 in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal which again was rejected by the respondent no. 3 by order dated 26-12-2008 on frivolous grounds of non- production of relevant records. The petitioner for the third time was relegated to seeking statutory remedies and the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-12-2009 directing the Assistant Commissioner to make the refund together with interest as per the direction of the Supreme Court. Copy of the order is placed at Annexure-7. The petitioner filed a fresh application together with details on 24-3-2010 and which has since been disposed of by the impugned order dated 24-5-2010 circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st at the rate of 20 per cent for the period thereafter from 26-5-1995 until 1-3-2000 in terms of a Notification dated 29-5-1995. Thereafter he calculated interest at the rate of 24 per cent for the period 1-3-2000 to 11-5-2000 in terms of a Notification dated 1-3-2000 which was followed by a calculation of interest at the rate of 15 per cent under a Notification dated 12-5-2000 for the period 12-5-2000 to 12-5-2002 finally to culminate in calculation of interest in terms of a notification without any date at the rate of 13 per cent for the period 13-5-2002 until the passing of the order impugned dated 24-5-2010. He thus calculated an interest of Rs. 12,20,836.54/- and added thereon the liability determined at Rs. 3,34,958.50, calculating the final liability of the petitioner at Rs. 15,55,795.04. As the petitioner had made a deposit of Rs. 15 lacs in terms of the Supreme Court order, hence the respondent no. 3 being gracious enough adjusted the said amount and determined balance outstanding of Rs. 55,795/04 to be deposited by the petitioner under the order impugned. The exercise undertaken by the respondent no. 3 to determine the liability of the petitioner is preposterous to say t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; "Unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stems from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are (i) All claims against Government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court of law. (ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved parties approach the Court and secure a decision ............" 13. Despite the judicial pronouncement drawing the attention of the authorities of the Central and State Government and the statutory corporations on the issue of generation of purposeless litigations, I am afraid the situation has neither improved nor can be improved until the authorities manning the adjudicatory post in the Department and performing quasi judicial functions do not show their willingness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
