AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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the provision for the payment of supervision charges under which Petitioner has paid the supervision charges, has been withdrawn.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. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune and Others,
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.