Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
M/S Monnet Industries Ltd. (Sugar … vs Union Of India Thru’Commissioner … on 4 August, 2010
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1078 of 2003
Petitioner :- M/S Monnet Industries Ltd. (Sugar Division)
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru'Commissioner Customs&Central Excise &Ors
Petitioner Counsel :- Piyush Agrawal,Bharat Ji Agrawal
Respondent Counsel :- S.S.C.,B.N. Singh,Shishir Kumar
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

Hon’ble Bharati Sapru,J.

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been withdrawn.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 refund application
dated 18.6.2001 claiming the refund of Rs.5,16,365/-

The Deputy Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Division I,
Muzaffarnagar vide its order 19.8.2001 has adjudicated the claim and
determined the excess amount refundable at Rs.4,33,490/- in place of
Rs.5,16,365/- The petitioner has further made claim of refund of
Rs.2,34,248/- and as against the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,03,131/-
was found refundable.

The refund has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that there
is no head for refunding the amount.

In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Sohan Singh, Asstt. Commissioner,
Central Excise Division I, Muzaffarnagar in para 17, it is admitted that
a sum of Rs.6,36,621/- consisting of Rs.4,33,490/- and Rs.2,03,131/-
is refundable to the petitioner.

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not
been refunded any amount till date, which was admittedly refundable
to the petitioner.

He further submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to the interest on
the amount refundable as the refundable amount has been illegally
withheld by the respondent. In support of his contention, the petitioner
has relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Sandvik Asia Ltd., versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Pune, reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) para 45.

Sri Shamboo Chopra submitted that in the absence of any provision of
the payment of interest, the petitioner is not entitled for the interest.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
writ petition, counter affidavit and the documents annexed thereto.

In para 17 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that
a sum of Rs.6,36,621/- is refundable to the petitioner. The petitioner
agreed to accept the said amount.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the
respondents have illegally withheld the amount refundable and
therefore the petitioner is entitled for the interest even in the absence
of any specific provision. Reliance is placed on the decision of Apex
Court in the case of Sandvik Asia (supra).

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed
to refund the amount of Rs.6,36,621/- within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with
interest at the rate of 10% from the date of order dated 19.8.2001 till
the date of actual payment.

Order Date :- 4.8.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.145 seconds.