DY. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ATUL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the Court, while passing an order in Special Civil Application No. 6020 of 2000 and in other matter on 12 -7 -2000 while making the Revenue liable to pay the interest, has relied on the circular. No doubt, it is true that it has reference to Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the instant case, what we find is that there was gross delay in the case of Modvat credit. The petitioners approached on several occasions to the officers of the Revenue. In one case, it was stated that on submitting the bank guarantee to the tune of 25% of the amount and further bond for the remaining amount, difference will be paid.

(2.) MR . Trivedi, learned Counsel stated that he has no grievance about the Court directing to pay the interest. However, he submitted that the circular, which is issued under Section 37B with reference to Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act in earlier cases of Modvat credit, may not be used as a lever. In the instant cases, even if there would be no delay, possibly the Court would have no occasion to pass an order, but in view of the fact that there was gross delay which has put the petitioners in financial loss and secondly, there is no reason why the Court should not apply the same analogy. With this clarification, we dispose of all these Applications. For other aspect, liberty is reserved to the counsel to move the Court.