Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (1) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t excisable under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly 'the Act, 1944'). The Central Excise Department, however, took the stand that brass barrels manufactured by the petitioner, were excisable and realised the excise duty aggregating to Rs. 65, 53, 508.86 from the petitioner during the period from 1-7-1974 to 31-4-1983, which the petitioner paid under protest. 3. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal"), New Delhi, against the order of the Excise Authority. The Tribunal by order dated 11-4-1983 (Annexure "1" to the writ petition) held that brass barrels manufactured by the petitioner being intermediary product for being used in torches, were not ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the counter-affidavit by the respondents that the petitioner was called upon to furnish several documents to enable the respondents to expedite the refund and that the refund was delayed because the petitioner failed to furnish the requisite documents, but this plea has not at all been substantiated by any material. There is nothing on record to show that the refund of the excise duty, recovered from the petitioner without authority of law, was considerably delayed due to laches on the part of the petitioner. Rather, in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred by the respondents that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12-9-1984 informing it that the Tribunal had passed orders on the basis of barrels, which were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (dead) by L. Rs. 1989 (4) Supreme Court Cases 297, the Supreme Court took the view that the Life Insurance Corporation (for short, the L.I.C.) was liable to pay interest on the amount of policy, which was belatedly paid by it to the assignee of the policy after the date of maturity. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated, but they are stated in as simplest manner as possible herein. The deceased, husband of Smt. Kamla Bai, took as many as four policies from the L.I.C., which matured on varying dates during the period from September 1972 to December 1975. In April 1969, the deceased assigned absolutely all the four policies in favour of his wife and the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to whom the payment thereunder had to be made even according to the stand of the L.I.C. is, therefore, clearly justified." 9. After this judgment, there is no virgin field for the liability on interest, but the legal proposition is fully settled that where the public bodies retained the amount, belonging to individuals, arbitrarily or unjustly they render themselves liable to pay interest. The decision rendered in L.I.C. case is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, sub-section (3) of Section 11-B of the Act, 1944, cast a statutory duty on the Assistant Collector to refund the amount becoming due to a person as a result of any order passed in appeal, without his having to make any claim in that behalf, and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty immediately after the judgment of the Tribunal. It is a matter of common knowledge that the processing in the Government Departments does take some time and, therefore, the refund could have been made only after a reasonable time from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal. What is reasonable time? On the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the respondents would have taken at least three months for processing. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get interest for the period from 11-7-1983 upto 26-8-1986. The next question is at what rate? In Redihot Electricals v. Union of India -1989 (43) E.L.T. 253 the Delhi High Court and in Metal Distributors Ltd., Bombay and another v. Union of India a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates