TATA SSL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1, under in threat of attachment of goods by the department, moved a stay application with appeal against the order. The petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 41,38,515.00 under protest pending the appeal. The amount of this pre -deposit was not being given credit, despite the fact that the appellate authority on 25 -2 -1999 held that Rules could not be given retrospective effect. As there was substantial compliance, appellate authority held that the benefit could not be denied to the petitioner and set aside the order in original. Despite repeated reminders, the department was not accepting the request for granting credit. Hence Special Civil Application No. 3791 of 2000 was preferred in this High Court. Division Bench considered the statement made by learned counsel for the Revenue and directed that the amount shall be refunded in accordance with law within four weeks from the receipt of the order. The Revenue was contemplating appeal at the relevant time. Therefore, it was also ordered that the amount refunded shall be subject to result of appeal. However, till today no material is placed before us to indicate that any appeal is preferred. In the order also we made it clear that if the petitioners are entitled to interest, the same shall be refunded with interest in accordance with law. The amount has been refunded to the petitioners by order dated 9 -8 -2000, whereby the Deputy Commissioner ordered to refund the pre -deposit amount of Rs. 41,38,515.00. The order is placed on record at Amexure 'H'.

(2.) IT is required to be noted that there is a gross delay on the part of the revenue in refunding the amount. In Special Civil Application No. 6020 of 2000 and other allied matter the Court directed to refund the amount with interest. The order was modified in Misc. Civil Application No. 1699 of 2000 and other allied matters wherein it was pointed out that as there was a gross delay which has put the petitioners in financial loss and that there is no reason why the Court should not apply the analogy while considering the cases under Section 37B read with 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in a reported decision in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.)] has taken a similar view which we have taken. The Court also pointed out that such a pre -deposit is not a payment of duty but only a pre -deposit for availing the right of appeal. Such amount is bound to be refunded when appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The Court directed to refund the amount with amount with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of order of the appellate tribunal.

(3.) THE petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.