Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Goldy Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & Anr on 22 May, 2023
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4332/2022
M/S GOLDY ENGINEERING WORKS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra and Mr.
Hukam, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SC with
Mr. Mayank Srivastava, Adv.
9
+ W.P.(C) 12143/2022
M/S SHARP MOULDS AND DIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra and Mr.
Hukam, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SC with
Mr. Mayank Srivastava, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 22.05.2023
1. The short question which arises in these two matters is with respect to the liability of the respondents to pay interest on account of an alleged delay in the refund which was ultimately affected. The petitioner suffered an order in original dated 08 February 2008 which confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 45,31,574. The aforesaid order was assailed before the Commissioner (Appeals) which proceeded to allow the same on 31 December 2008. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner became entitled to a refund of Rs. 20 lakhs. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals), however, was assailed by the Department before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] on which an interim order was granted. The said This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 19:26:22 interim order continued till the appeal was ultimately dismissed on merits on 27 September 2016. The applicant is stated to have moved an application for refund thereafter on 14 November 2016 and the refund ultimately affected on 01 March 2017.
2. According to the petitioner, the respondent is liable to pay interest from the time when the Commissioner (Appeals) pronounced its decision and the said liability would continue even during the period when the appeal which was preferred before the CESTAT was pending and an interim order operated.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents however submits that the scheme of Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1994 links the liability to pay interest to an actual application for refund being made. Learned counsel has in this regard also placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [(2011) 10 SCC 292] as well as Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories [(2016) 6 SCC 621].
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for time to place a compilation of decisions which, according to him, are liable to be read in favour of the prayers as made in the writ petition. In order to enable him to do so, let the same be filed within a period of one week from today. The respondents are also accorded similar liberty.
5. Let these two matters be called again for further consideration on 10.07.2023.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
MAY 22, 2023 / SU This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 19:26:22