{"id":52553,"date":"2011-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-27T15:37:43","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T10:07:43","slug":"welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/7257\/2011\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7257 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7258 of\n2011 \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nWELSPUN\nTRADING LIMITED - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHARDIK P MODH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,\n3, \nMR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
These petitions arise in similar
\n\tfactual background. They have therefore, been heard together and are
\n\tbeing disposed of by this common judgement. Facts as arising in
\n\tSpecial Civil Application No.7257\/2011 may be noted.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners are merchant
\n\texporters. For the exports made by the petitioners they had lodged
\n\trebate claims with the Central Excise authorities on 9.7.2007 and
\n\tthereafter. Such rebate claims were neither granted nor rejected by
\n\tthe authorities. It appears that the authorities held the belief
\n\tthat by virtue of a circular dated 8.12.2006, the petitioners were
\n\tnot entitled to such rebate.\n<\/p>\n
One of the petitioners in these
\n\tpetitions had approached this Court by filing writ petition
\n\tchallenging such circular dated 8.12.2006. It is not in dispute that
\n\t this Court in decision in case of Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren
\n\tLtd. v. Union of India reported in 2010(254) ELT 551(Guj.) held
\n\tthat such circular cannot  take away the vested right of the
\n\texporters to claim rebate for exports made between 8.12.2006 till
\n\t17.9.2007. It is not in dispute that the rebate claim of the present
\n\tpetitioners were covered by the said decision of this Court. It is
\n\talso not in dispute that decision of this Court in case of Welspun
\n\tGujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. was challenged before the Apex Court
\n\tand the appeal of the department was dismissed by judgement in case
\n\tof Union of India v. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd.
\n\treported in 2010 (256) ELT A161(SC). Decision of Apex  Court was
\n\trendered on 23.7.2010.\n<\/p>\n
After the decision of Apex Court,
\n\tthe adjudicating authority on the basis of decision of this Court in
\n\tcase of Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd.(supra),
\n\tallowed the rebate claims of the petitioners by various orders
\n\tpassed in September, October and November 2010. While granting
\n\trebate as claimed by the petitioners however, the adjudicating
\n\tauthority did not grant any interest on such rebate claims. The
\n\tpetitioners therefore vide communication dated 17.1.2011 prayed that
\n\tinterest be granted on such rebate claims. Since there was no
\n\tresponse to this communication, the petitioners sent yet another
\n\tcommunication dated 1.4.2011 and reiterated their request for
\n\tinterest. In response to such communication, the Deputy Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise on 31.5.2011 wrote as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Please
\n\trefer to your application dated 17.01.2011 and 01.04.2011, claiming
\n\tinterest of total Rs.8,07,41,671\/- on the amount of rebate
\n\tsanctioned by this office vide Rebate (Refund) Orders No.480\/10-11
\n\tdated 30.09.2010, 485\/10-11 dated 07.10.10, 509\/10-11 dated 11.10.10
\n\tand 560\/10-11 dated 04.11.10.\n<\/p>\n
02\tIn
\n\tthis regard your attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 11B
\n\tand 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 according to which interest
\n\ton delayed refunds are to be given to the applicants if the refunds
\n\tare not sanctioned within the stipulated time limit.\n<\/p>\n
03.\tIn
\n\tthe present cases, the refund(rebate) became payable only after the
\n\tjudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 23.07.2010. As per
\n\tabove mentioned provisions, no interest is payable as all the Rebate
\n\tClaims are disposed off within the prescribed time limit mentioned
\n\tin Section 11A read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act,
\n\t1944.\n<\/p>\n
04.\tIn
\n\tview of above, your application for sanction of interest on the
\n\trebate claims, mentioned hereinabove merits rejection as all the
\n\tabove mentioned Rebate Claims have been sanctioned in conformity
\n\twith the provisions of Section11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners are therefore,
\n\tbefore this Court questioning the stand of the respondents in
\n\tdenying the claim of interest on the delayed payment of rebate.\n<\/p>\n
While issuing notice on 16.6.2011,
\n\twe had made following observations :\n<\/p>\n
“Counsel
\nfor the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted rebate
\npursuant to the judgment of this Court in case of Welspun Gujarat
\nStahl Rohren Limited vs. Union of India, reported in 2010 (254)
\nELT 551 (Guj). However, the claim of interest on such delayed refund
\nwas turned down on the ground that such refund was paid within
\nthree months of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
\nupholding the decision of the High Court. He submitted that the stand
\nof the Department is contrary to several decisions of this Court, in
\nparticular, he relied on the judgment in the case of Afrique
\nTradelinks Private Limited v. Union of India<\/a> dated 3rd
\nFebruary 2004, reported in 2004 (2) GLR 667.\n<\/p>\n
\tIssue
\n\tnotice returnable on 14th July 2011. Direct service is
\n\tpermitted.”\n<\/p>\n
At the outset, learned counsel for
\n\tthe petitioners submitted that after this Court issued notice in
\n\tthese petitions, the petitioners to safeguard themselves against any
\n\tlapse of period of limitation before the Commissioner(Appeals),
\n\tfiled appeals against the impugned orders. He however, submitted
\n\tthat the petitioners would be withdrawing such appeals and that such
\n\tappeals were filed only by way of abundant caution to keep the right
\n\tof appeal alive.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard learned counsel for
\n\tthe parties for final disposal of the petitions.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the petitioners
\n\tsubmitted that the stand of the authority is wholly erroneous. He
\n\tsubmitted that rebate claims were not sanctioned within three months
\n\tfrom the date of filing such claim. In terms of Section 11BB of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to
\n\tinterest upon completion of such period of three months. He relied
\n\ton several judgements of this Court as well as Bombay High Court in
\n\tthis regard. In particular, our attention was drawn to the decision
\n\tof revisional authority dated 24.12.2010, copy of which is produced
\n\tat Annexure-C to the petitions, wherein while granting the rebate
\n\tclaims of the revisional petitioner therein, the authority also
\n\tafter examining various judgements granted such rebate with
\n\tinterest.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand, learned counsel
\n\tShri Ravani submitted that when the  rebate claims were lodged,
\n\tcircular of the department did not permit such claims to be
\n\tsanctioned. He submitted that only when the law was settled by the
\n\tApex Court in case of Union of India v. Welspun Gujarat
\n\tStahl Rohren Ltd.(supra) by
\n\tits order dated 23.7.2010, that the department undertook steps to
\n\tsanction rebate claim. This was done within three months of the date
\n\tof the Supreme Court’s order. No interest was therefore, required to
\n\tbe paid. He relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in
\n\tcase of Padmanabh Silk Mills v. Union of India<\/a>
\n\treported in 2006(193) ELT 536(Guj.).\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe facts on record it clearly emerges that rebate claims of the
\n\tpetitioners were neither granted nor rejected by the authority for a
\n\tlong period of time. If the authority was of the opinion that by
\n\tvirtue of a particular circular such claim was not sustainable, the
\n\trebate claim could as well have been rejected. Such rejection would
\n\thave given the petitioners at-least right to challenge such
\n\tdecision. This was admittedly not done. In the meantime, the
\n\toffending circular dated 8.12.2006 was challenged by one of the
\n\tpetitioners before Gujarat High Court.  Gujarat High in case of
\n\tWelspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd.(supra)
\n\theld and observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“24.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tBy inserting Clause (h) in the Notification No.19\/2004-CE(NT) dated
\n\t6.9.2004, an attempt was made to give retrospective effect to the
\n\tNotification No.37\/2007-CE(NT) dated 17.9.2007. However, there is
\n\tnothing in this Notification to apply it retrospectively and even
\n\totherwise, it is not legally permissible.\n<\/p>\n
\txxxx<\/p>\n
\txxxx<\/p>\n
\t27.
\n\t\tBased on this amendment, it was strongly urged before the Court
\n\tthat the application and\/or operation of the provisions of Rule-18
\n\tof Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been restricted only upto a period
\n\tenumerated in Col.No.3 of Sixth Schedule, i.e. 1st
\n\tday
\n\tof March, 2002 to 7th
\n\tday of December, 2006.  Despite this amendment brought in by
\n\tSection-88 of the Finance Act, 2008, the right vested in the
\n\tpetitioner No.1 Company to claim rebate in respect of export of
\n\tgoods after 8.12.2006 until 17.9.2007 continued and its validity or
\n\tenforceability could not be affected.”\n<\/p>\n
The Apex
\n\tCourt upon an appeal by the Department upheld the decision of
\n\tGujarat High Court. It was only thereafter that rebate claims of the
\n\tpetitioners were sanctioned. When the Gujarat High Court declared
\n\tthat the circular would not affect the claim of rebate for exports
\n\tmade during a certain period, it would have effect  right from the
\n\tinception i.e. from the date of issuance of circular.  Contention of
\n\tthe counsel for Revenue that the petitioners became entitled to
\n\trebate only when the High Court rendered the judgement and from the
\n\tdate when the Apex Court confirmed the decision of Gujarat High
\n\tCourt, cannot be accepted. The judgement of the High Court only
\n\tdeclared a certain legal position. Supreme Court upheld such
\n\tdecision.  In terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the
\n\tpetitioners were entitled to interest on the delayed payment of
\n\trebate after period of three months of filing of such claims.\n<\/p>\n
Section 11BB
\n\tof the Central Excise Act reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Section
\n\t11BB: Interest on delayed refunds.- If any duty ordered to be
\n\trefunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is
\n\tnot refunded within three months from the date of receipt of
\n\tapplication under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be
\n\tpaid to that applicant interest at such rate, [not below five
\n\tpercent] and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the
\n\ttime being fixed [by the Central Government, by Notification in the
\n\tOfficial Gazette], on such duty from the date immediately after the
\n\texpiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application
\n\ttill the date of refund of such duty:\n<\/p>\n
Provided
\nthat where any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of
\nsection 11B in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of
\nthat section made before the date on which the Finance Bill,1995
\nreceives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three
\nmonths from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest
\nunder this section from the date immediately after three months from
\nsuch date, till the date of refund of such duty.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.-\n<\/p>\n
where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals),
\nAppellate Tribunal [National Tax  Tribunal] or any court against an
\norder of the [Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy
\nCommissioner of Central Excise], under sub-section (2) of section
\n11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate
\nTribunal or, as the case may be, by the Court shall be deemed to be
\nan order passed under the said subsection (2) for the purposes of
\nthis section.]”\n<\/p>\n
 \tCounsel for the
\n\trespondents would rely on the explanation to section 11BB to contend
\n\tthat question of interest would arise only after three months of the
\n\tjudgement of the Supreme Court. To our mind such contention is also
\n\tnot tenable. In the present case order of refund (in form of rebate
\n\tclaim) was not made by the High Court or any Appellate authority but
\n\tby the Assistant  Commissioner as the original adjudicating
\n\tauthority.\n<\/p>\n
Decision
\n\tof this Court in case of Arique  Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd &
\n\tanr. v. Union of India & anr.\n<\/p>\n
\treported in 2004(2) GLR 1587 is along similar lines of-course in
\n\tbackground of provisions contained in Sections 27 and 27A of the
\n\tCustoms Tariff Act. Division Bench observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “9.\tWhile
\n  the   submission   of  Mr  Shah,  learned additional standing
\ncounsel for  the  Central  Government will  have  a  bearing  in  so
\nfar  as  the  question of implementation of the final order is
\nconcerned, that  is,if  the  order  of  the  Assistant\/Deputy
\nCommissioner is varied by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it
\n is  the order of the appellate authority which is required to  be
\ngiven  effect  to.    The  Section,  however, does not  provide that
\nthe interest would be paid from the date  of  the order  of  the
\nappellate  authority.    Section  27A     clearly provides that
\ninterest  is  to  be  paid  to  the  applicant   on   the  duty  in
\nquestion  from  the  date  immediately after the expiry of  three
\nmonths  from  the  date of receipt of such application (for refund)
\ntill the      date of  refund  of such duty.  There is no dispute
\nabout  the fact that  the  petitioners  had  made  the  original
\napplication  for  refund of excess customs duty (65% less 45%) on
\n31.10.1995 and, therefore, the  petitioners  have claimed  interest
\nfor the period from 31.1.1996 onwards.  Even in respect of the
\npetitioners’  claim  for  interest  for  delayed  payment of refund
\namount of Rs.14,83,303\/-,  the respondent  authorities  have  paid
\nthe  petitioners  interest  for  the period from 31.1.1996 till the
\ndate of payment of the said refund amount  which  worked  out  to
\nRs.9,56,729\/-  and  which  was paid to the petitioners on  12.7.2000.
\n  There  is  no  reason  for  the   respondent  authorities to
\njustifiably refuse payment of interest for  the  delay  in  payment
\nof refund amount of Rs.5,21,099\/-   which  was  ultimately
\nsanctioned  by  the  Commissioner  (Appeals)  by his order dated
\n26.2.2001 and actually paid  to the petitioners on 30.6.2001.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn
\nthe facts  of  the  instant  case,  while  the Deputy  Commissioner
\nhad determined the refund amount of  Rs.14,83,303\/-,  the  appellate
\nauthority  allowed   the  additional refund amount of Rs.5,21,099\/-
\nand, therefore,  there  is  no  justification  for denying the
\npetitioners   interest for the delay in payment of the said  amount
\nof      Rs.5,21,099\/-  for  the period from the date of expiry of
\nthree months from 31.10.1995  when  the  petitioners  had     made
\nthe  application for refund of the entire amount of  Rs.20,72,023\/-
\nout of which Rs.14,83,303\/-  was  directed  to  be  refunded by the
\nDeputy Commissioner’s order dated  6.6.2000 and the  balance  amount
\nof  Rs.5,21,099\/-  was ordered  to  be  refunded by the Appellate
\nCommissioner’s  order dated 26.2.2001.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn  view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed.   The  respondents  are  directed  to  pay   the  petitioners   interest   at   the   rates  applicable  in  accordance with the notifications  issued  under  Section   27A   of   the  Customs  Act,  1962,  on  the  amount  of     Rs.5,21,099\/- for the period from the date of  expiry  of   three  months from the date on which the petitioners made   the refund application till the date of payment of refund  of the said amount i.e.  for the  period  from  31.1.1996  till 30.6.2001.      The  amount  of  interest  shall  be      calculated within one month from the date of  receipt  of  the writ of this Court and the actual payment of interest  so  calculated  shall be made within one month thereafter i.e.  within two months from the date of receipt  of  the  writ of this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\t We
\n\tmay also notice that Bombay High Court in case of Shroff United
\n\tChemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in
\n\t2011-TIOL-411-HC-MUM-ST dated 6.6.2011 had an occasion to examine
\n\tthe claim of interest for delayed refund under Section 11BB of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act. Bombay High Court set aside the order of the
\n\tAppellate  Commissioner refusing interest making following
\n\tobservations :\n<\/p>\n
8.
\n\tWe are not impressed with the submission that the Petitioners
\n\tshould be relegated to pursuing a remedy of an appeal against the
\n\torder of the Deputy Commissioner insofar as it declines the claim
\n\tfor interest. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) while
\n\tremanding the proceedings had by an order dated 15 October 2010
\n\tdirected the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim
\n\t“along with interest under Section 11 BB”. Section 11 BB
\n\tpostulates that if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub section
\n\t(2) of Section 11 B to any applicant is not refunded within three
\n\tmonths from the date of receipt of the application under sub section
\n\t(1) of that section, the applicant shall be paid interest at the
\n\trate stipulated on such duty from the date immediately after the
\n\texpiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application
\n\ttill the date of refund of such duty. The entitlement of the
\n\tapplicant, once the requisite conditions have been fulfilled follows
\n\tas a matter of law and is a mandate of the statute. The record
\n\tbefore the Court makes it clear that the application that was
\n\tsubmitted by the Petitioners was together with the relevant
\n\tdocumentary evidence. The finding of the adjudicating authority that
\n\tthe Petitioners had not submitted relevant documentary evidence has
\n\tbeen reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and it has been found to
\n\tbe erroneous. As a matter of fact the Petitioners had together with
\n\tthe refund application enclosed a certificate of the Chartered
\n\tAccountant and had thereafter by a letter dated 8 November 2006 also
\n\tannexed a copy of the Balancesheet as of 31 March 2006. Having
\n\tregard these admitted facts, upon which there is no dispute, the
\n\treasons which weighed with the Deputy Commissioner in declining to
\n\tgrant interest are specious. The adjudicating authority has noted
\n\tthat the Petitioners submitted the documents on 22 October 2010;
\n\tattended a personal hearing on 14 March 2011, during the course of
\n\twhich relevant documents to decide the refund claim were submitted.
\n\tThe fact that the Petitioners submitted relevant documents once
\n\tagain at the personal hearing upon remand does not detract from the
\n\tfact that all the necessary documents were already submitted by the
\n\tPetitioners in the first place before the adjudicating authority
\n\tmuch prior to the order of remand. In that view of the matter, the
\n\tadjudicating authority had no justification whatsoever in declining
\n\tto allow the claim of interest which has a statutory character.”\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\tmay also notice that in another decision in case of Swaraj
\n\tMazda Limited v. Union of India
\n\treported in 2009(235)ELT 788(Bom.), following observations were made
\n\t:\n<\/p>\n
“8.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tPerusal of the above provision shows that if any duty recovered
\n\tis found to be refundable still the payment is not made within a
\n\tperiod of three months from the receipt of application for refund
\n\tthen interest is liable to be paid. Perusal of the above provision
\n\tmakes it clear that liability to pay interest arises on expiry of
\n\tperiod of three months “from the date of receipt of
\n\tapplication under sub-section (1) of Section 11B.” We have
\n\talready referred to above as to how application under section 11B is
\n\tto be made, therefore, unless a finding is recorded that the
\n\tapplication that was filed by the petitioner under Section 11B
\n\tcannot be termed as an application made under section 11B, liability
\n\tto pay interest after expiry of period of three months from the date
\n\tof receipt of that application cannot be denied. Firstly there is no
\n\tsuch finding recorded in the order impugned and secondly on close
\n\texamination of the order of the appellate authority dated 30.7.1999
\n\twe find that it cannot be said that the application filed by the
\n\tpetitioner for refund was found to be so incomplete that it would
\n\tnot be termed as an application at all. The revisional authority in
\n\tthe order impugned has observed that the appellate authority found
\n\tthat a certificate from the authority was found necessary for
\n\testablishing correlation by the appellate authority. Perusal of the
\n\torder of the appellate authority does not show that production of
\n\tthe certificate was necessary for establishing correlation.
\n\tCorrelation was to be established by looking at the chassis number
\n\tin the duty paying document executed at the time of payment of duty
\n\ton the chassis with engine and the chassis number mentioned in the
\n\tduty paying document executed at the time of payment of duty on the
\n\tbus. The documents evidencing payment of duty at both the occasions
\n\twere already available on record because it is only on the basis of
\n\tthose two documents that the Assistant Commissioner had recorded
\n\tfinding that the duty has been paid on both the occasions. It is,
\n\tthus, clear that the correlation could be established only on the
\n\tbasis of those two documents which were on record. A certificate was
\n\trequired to be submitted by the appellate authority only to
\n\treinforce the fact that the duties have been paid at both the
\n\tplaces. We thus find that the finding recorded in the order impugned
\n\tthat the applications for refund made by the petitioner were
\n\tincomplete on the date of which they were received, is not
\n\tsustainable and is contrary to the record and, therefore, is liable
\n\tto be set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
We notice that decision of Bombay
\n\tHigh Court in case of  Swaraj Mazda Limited(supra)
\n\twas carried further in appeal. Apex Court however,
\n\tdismissed the appeal in case of Union of India v.  Swaraj
\n\tMazda Limited reported in
\n\t2010(253) ELT A19(SC).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of such catena of decisions on the issue, we have no hesitation
\n\tin holding that authority erred in not granting rebate to the
\n\tpetitioners with interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\talready noted the revisional authority also under similar
\n\tcircumstances had allowed the rebate claim with interest of the
\n\trevisional petitioner therein. In decision of this Court in case of
\n\tPadmanabh Silk Mills(supra),
\n\tDivision Bench had proceeded on footing that petitioner therein had
\n\tmade claim of interest on delayed refund under Section 11B of the
\n\tAct. Judgement was rendered in different factual background.\n<\/p>\n
\tConsidering
\n\tthe facts and circumstances of the case, both the petitions are
\n\tallowed. The petitioners’ claim of interest on rebate beyond the
\n\tperiod of three months from the date of applications is granted.
\n\tAdjudicating Authority shall calculate the interest expeditiously
\n\tand preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy
\n\tof this order.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\trecord the statement of the petitioner that appeals before the
\n\tAppellate Commissioner shall be withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
\tPetitions
\n\tare disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(Akil
\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n
(Ms.\n<\/p>\n
Sonia Gokani,J.)<\/p>\n
(raghu)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7257\/2011 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7257 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7258 of 2011 ========================================================= WELSPUN TRADING LIMITED – Petitioner(s) Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWelspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-27T10:07:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T10:07:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3493,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T10:07:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-27T10:07:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T10:07:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011"},"wordCount":3493,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011","name":"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T10:07:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/welspun-vs-union-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Welspun vs Union on 29 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52553","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52553"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52553\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}