RAMKRISHNA WIRE WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these three petitions the petitioners claim amount of interest on the amount which has been ordered to be refunded to each one of them by judgment and order passed in respective petitions filed by them in this High Court. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No.1126 of 1990 had filed Special Civil application No. 791 of 1972. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1127 of 1990 had filed Special Civil Application No. 1215 of 1972 and petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1128 of 1990 had filed Special Civil Application No. 793 of 1972. In the aforesaid petitions the respondents were directed to refund the amount of excise duty which was recovered from them unlawfully as held by the High Court. It may be noted that the High Court while granting refund did not issue any direction as regards payment of interest in the respective petitions. None of the petitioners did even pray for grant of interest. Thus technically all the petitions are barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. However we are deciding the petition on merits also.

(2.) Now the petitioners claim that they should be paid interest on the amount of excise duty which was unlawfully recovered and retained by the Government. Amount of interest as prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioners in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satellite Engineering v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (58) ELT 503. In the aforesaid decision this Court has considered the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s V jay Textile v. Union of India retorted in 20 GLR pg. 944 wherein interest was awarded. However the said decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ujagar Prints v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC pg. 516. This Court further observed that the Supreme Court might not have touched the question with regard to the claim of interest which was awarded in the case of Vijay Textile (supra) but the decision of the Division Bench of this Court ceases to be good law. This is so because the decision in the case of Vijay Textile (supra) itself has been reversed and set aside. Once a decision is reversed and set aside it is immaterial on which point the decision was reversed. On the reversion of the decision it ceases to be good decision in the eye of law

(3.) It may be noted that there is no statutory provision on the basis of which the petitioners could have claimed interest on the amount of refund of duty granted to them. Had the legislature thought it fit to award interest in cases where the amount of duty is refunded the legislature would have made such provision. It is pertinent to note that such provisions are made in other taxing statutes such as Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 and Income Tax Act 1961 There is no such provision in the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 Therefore there is no basis in law on which the claim for interest could be founded.