AJANTA TUNES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in the petition had been issued on 2.4.1992. The petitioner by the present writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus or direction of like nature, directing the respondents to pay interest @ 17.5% on quarterly rests on the amount of Rs. 39/27,521.00 from 8.10.1986 till date of its refund on 25.9.1989. The petitioner also seeks a direction for production of all the records relating to its claim for refund terminating in the order bearing No. 5-6-C-8110/86 dated 30.10.1986.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner had, imported Prime Hot Rolled Steel Coils. These were cleared vide will of entry filed on 3.10.1986. It was the petitioner's case that customs duty was leviable @ 14% ad-valorem based on the benefit of exemption notification. Respondents, however, recovered excess duty amounting to Rs. 39,27,521.00. The petitioner moved an application for refund, which claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The petitioner succeeded in appeal and the respondents were directed to refund the excise duty collected in excess. Respondent had preferred Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. This was followed by SLP by the respondent before the Apex Court, which was also dismissed. Excess duty was refunded only on 25.9.1989. Petitioner in these circumstances, claims interest on the amount wrongly withheld from 8.10.1986 to 25.9.1989.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that the respondents had wrongfully recovered and withheld the amount thereby depriving the petitioner of the said sum for a period of 3 years and more. As the petitioner's stand had been vindicated by the Authorities and upto the Apex Court, the petitioner was entitled to be compensated for the period, which he has been deprived of the said amount. Learned Counsel submitted that in these circumstances, writ petition would be maintainable and High Court would be fully justified in directing the payment of interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Redihot Electricals v. U.O.I., reported at 1989 (43) ELT 253; and Jeep Industrial Syndicate Limited v. U.O.I, reported at 1990 (47) ELT 311.