TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows in the facts and circumstances of the present case set out above. We, therefore, direct the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount of ₹ 6,20,28,059.98 from 1-10-1991 to 1-5-1997, the latter date being the date when the entire principal amount was recovered by the respondents. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with the above modification in the High Court's order. - 1371 of 1998 - - - Dated:- 4-3-1998 - Sujata V. Manohar and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ. [Judgment per : Sujata V. Manohar, J.]. - Leave granted. 2.This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 14th of October, 1996 of the High Court at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 1938 of 1982. 3.The appellant is a manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 907 of 1975 before the Bombay High Court claiming a refund of excise duty for the period 1-3-1965 to 31-8-1972 on the basis that excise duty should have been levied on the basis of the value of their goods determined (1) on the basis of the price at which the appellant sold his product to his distributors and (2) the value of the product so determined should be reduced by the amount of post-manufacturing expenses. In the writ petition the appellant excluded the period 28-9-1971 to 31-8-1972 for which the appellant had already received a favourable order from the Central Government. A learned Single Judge of the High Court (Madon, J. as he then was), by his order dated 23-11-1981 allowed the writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istribution and marketing expenses. He held that post-manufacturing expenses under all these three heads were deductible from the assessable value for the purposes of excise, and thus calculated the above refund. 7.Under the said order of the High Court dated 23rd of November, 1981, the amounts so calculated by the Assistant Commissioner were to be paid on or before 10th of August, 1982. Since the amounts were not paid, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1938 of 1982 on 17th of September, 1982 in the High Court for payment of Rs. 6,20,28,059.98 (there is a small discrepancy in the adding up of the said two amounts) together with interest. 8.On 21st of September, 1982 the High Court admitted the Writ Petition No. 1938 of 1982 and dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges. The appeal was accordingly disposed of. This order has been subsequently clarified on 28-2-1997 as not denying to the appellant, claims which had already been allowed earlier, since these were not the subject matter of this Court's order. Therefore, this Court should not be taken to have rejected those claims. As a result of this order, the order dated 23-11-1981 in Writ Petition No. 907 of 1975 was now replaced by the order of remand of this Court dated 19-7-1995, confined to examination of the claim for deduction regarding freight and bank charges on bill discounting. 11.On 24-1-1996, in the light of the remand order of this Court, in original Writ Petition No. 907 of 1975, the High Court, by an interim order in Writ Petition N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant for refund has not been remanded for reconsideration. The remand is for considering only two claims, namely, for freight and bank charges on bill discounting in the light of the judgment of this Court which came to be delivered only in May 1995 in the case of Government of India v. M.R.F. Limited (supra). However, on 11-7-1996 the Assistant Commissioner, examining the claims on remand, rejected all claims of the appellant for refund on the ground of the addition of Sections 11B(1) and 11B(2) in the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 by an amendment in 1991. An appeal from this order of the Assistant Commissioner is pending. 13.In the context of the amendment made in the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944, by virtue of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1944 was added on 26th of May, 1995 by the Finance Act, 1995. This section provides, inter alia, for interest on delayed payment of duty. Where a person chargeable with duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A fails to pay such duty within three months from the date of such determination, he shall pay, in addition to the duty, interest at such rate not below 10% and not exceeding 30% per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Board on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of payment of such duty. Prior to the insertion of Section 11AA there was no specific provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 under which the department could recover interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
