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

2005 (1) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the equipment to be a refrigeration unit. Excise duty payable by the first petitioner was paid treating the equipment as heat exchanger. The respondents thought that higher amount of excise duty was payable for the equipment as it was a refrigeration unit. 3.As a result the Collector of Central Excise initiated a proceeding and passed order dated June 7, 1984 asking the first petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 65,892/- towards excise duty payable on account of sale of the equipment in question. 4.The first petitioner felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Although the first petitioner filed requisite application for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said sum of Rs. 65,892/-. The first petitioner also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from December 29, 1984 to November 28, 1998. Reminders sent by the first petitioner failed to yield any result till February 17, 1999 when the authorities, asked the first petitioner to submit application for refund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9.Feeling aggrieved by the actions and inactions of the Central Excise authorities in the matter of refund of the said sum of Rs. 65,892/- with interest, the petitioners took out the present writ petition on June 23, 1999. 10.Thereafter the Central Excise authorities issued a cheque for Rs. 65,982/-. On presentation such cheque dated February 23, 2000 was dishonoured. Subs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entitlement to interest he has invited my attention to para 7 of the Bombay High Court decision. He has also read para 7 of the Supreme Court decision in Kuil Fire Works Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, reported at 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). When I asked him what would be the fair and reasonable rate of interests, if I am inclined to allow interest to the petitioners, he has very fairly said that keeping in view the prevailing rates of interest during the period in question interests at the rate of 10% per annum if granted by me would be fair and reasonable. 13.While opposing the prayer for interest, advocate for the respondents has submitted that in any case, in the year 1998, when the proceeding initiated by the adjudicating .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for adjudication by the adjudicating authority. In other words, the parties were put back to the situation of a show cause notice against the petitioner being adjudicated by the authority. Mr. Jetley fairly conceded that there is no provision in the Act which requires deposit of any amount at the stage of adjudication and that the only provision which requires deposit is Section 35F of the Act after the adjudication has quantified the liability towards duty. If these are the circumstances, then we see no reason how the respondents were entitled to hold on to the money merely because the adjudication was proceeding on the original show cause notice, that too on demands which were hopelessly time-barred, as subsequently pointed out by the Sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o discharge their such unqualified obligation, they were not also in the mood to consider the repeated requests made by the petitioners for making the refund. I am, therefore, of the view that for the inordinate unjust and unfair delay in making the refund the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioners. 20.The next question is what should be the rate of interest. By referring to the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court decisions advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in those cases interest was granted at the rate of 12% and 18% per annum respectively. He has, however, very fairly said that grant of interest at the rate of 10% per annum would be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21.I .....

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