Writ petition for excise duty refund dismissed due to procedural flaws and impermissible concurrent appeals.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of central excise duty, interest, and challenging unjust enrichment. The court found the petition misconceived, emphasizing that interest cannot be claimed without a written demand and that pursuing a writ petition alongside a statutory appeal on the same cause of action is impermissible. The court held that the petition lacked proper pleadings and foundation in the affidavit, rendering it infructuous after the statutory appeal decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of central excise duty.
2. Unjust enrichment.
3. Time-barred claims under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Entitlement to interest on the refund amount.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition alongside statutory appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of Central Excise Duty:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical products, sought a refund of Rs. 60,108.72 with interest, claiming that excise duty was absorbed in the price due to the Drug Control Order. The petitioner argued that excise duty was not passed on to customers, as established by previous judgments, and thus, they were entitled to the refund. The department initially disallowed this, but subsequent court orders directed the refund calculation, which the department failed to comply with, leading to the current writ petition.

2. Unjust Enrichment:
The respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment, arguing that the refund amount should go to the Consumer Welfare Fund. However, previous judgments had established that the excise duty element was absorbed by the petitioner and not passed on to customers. The court noted that the prices remained unchanged and no excise duty was charged to customers, negating the unjust enrichment claim.

3. Time-Barred Claims under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The respondents also argued that part of the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11(B). However, the court found this argument contrary to the Division Bench judgment, which had already directed the refund. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) resulted in an order favoring the petitioner, except for a small portion of the claim deemed time-barred.

4. Entitlement to Interest on the Refund Amount:
The petitioner claimed interest on the refund amount for the period before the introduction of Section 11BB of the Act, citing the Interest Act and equitable grounds. The court examined precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India, which held that interest is a normal accretion on capital. The court also considered the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, which supported awarding interest on delayed payments. However, the respondents argued that no interest was payable as the refund was initially denied due to unjust enrichment and the amount was with the Consumer Welfare Fund.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Alongside Statutory Appeal:
The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, given that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal before CESTAT. The court noted that it is not permissible to pursue parallel proceedings on the same cause of action. The petitioner disclosed the appeal in the writ petition but did not challenge the CESTAT order, which had set aside the impugned order without granting interest. The court emphasized that no relief can be granted without proper pleadings and that the writ petition was rendered infructuous once the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it misconceived and an abuse of the court process. The petitioner's claim for interest was not supported by a written demand, and the writ petition was not maintainable due to the parallel statutory appeal. The court upheld the principle that no relief can be granted without proper pleadings and foundation in the affidavit.

---