SOVEREIGN LIQUOR DISTRIBUTORS Vs. STATE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed seeking directions to the Respondents to refund the countervailing duty of Rs. 38,880/- with interest @ 18% and also the interest on security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- @ 18% from 26-6-1982 to 25-4-1988.

(2.) The petitioner was holding Licence under the A.P. Excise Act issued by the Excise Superintendent, Chittoor. He was issued with a import permit No. 99780-81, dated 30-12-1980 for importing certain quantities of Hercules XXX Rum and Sovereign Brandy from Khoday, R.C.A. Industries, Bangalore. The petitioner paid the advance countervailing duty of Rs. 38,880/- through challan No. 813, dated 14-12-1980. As per the Rules, the goods have to be imported within 90 days, the extension was obtained. However, even during the extension period, the liquor was not released and the Distillery could not make any supply to the petitioner. Accordingly, the non-supply certificate was issued. In view of the fact that the Import Permit was not utilised, the petitioner applied for cancellation and also for refund of the duty.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the Sub-Inspector concerned did not transmit the papers to the authorities. Therefore, a fresh application was submitted on 10-7-1982. It is also the case of the petitioner that he stopped the business from June, 1982 itself and applied for refund of Security Deposit on 26-6-1982. The petitioner submits that after protracted correspondence, the Security Deposit of Rs. 25,000/- was refunded on 25-4-1988. But, however, the grievance of the petitioner is that since the amount of Security Deposit was illegally withheld by the authorities, the petitioner is entitled for commercial interest @ 18%, from 26-8-1982 (sic. 26-6-1982) till the date of payment. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the Import Permit was not utilised, the countervailing duty paid in advance cannot be retained by the authorities and the same has to be refunded with interest. The petitioner having been unsuccessful before the Commissioner of Excise, made a representation to the Government and the Government has informed the petitioner that his case is rejected holding that there is no provision for refund of the amount under the Act. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate directions.