Tribunal grants appeal, orders refund of excise duty and interest, emphasizing entitlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside orders that denied interest from 1-4-1982 till 14-6-1982 and any refund for excise duty on goods under T.I. 14 and 65. The jurisdictional authority was directed to reconsider the appellant's claim for the refund and pay the due interest. The decision highlighted errors in denying interest and withholding refund amounts, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to both.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of interest from 1-4-1982 till 14-6-1982.
2. Non-refund of excess duty on goods under T.I. 14 and 65.
3. Withholding of Rs. 22,72,457.00 from the refund amount.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Interest from 1-4-1982 till 14-6-1982:
The High Court had directed the Department to refund the excess duty paid with interest at 6% per annum from 2-4-1976 (date of filing Writ Petition) till payment. The Supreme Court's interim order dated 2-4-1982, which allowed three months for payment, did not modify this directive. The lower authorities erred in denying interest for the period from 1-4-1982 till 14-6-1982. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to this interest, and the jurisdictional authority must pay the due amount.

2. Non-refund of Excess Duty on Goods under T.I. 14 and 65:
The Assistant Collector's order was silent on the refund of Rs. 2,77,018.96 for goods under T.I. 14 and 65. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appellant's contention, stating the High Court's judgment related only to a single price list. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector's letter dated 8-10-1975 applied to all price lists filed by the appellant, including those for goods under T.I. 14 and 65. The High Court's quashing of the Assistant Collector's direction implied relief for all goods where the appellant had to file price lists in Part IV instead of Part I. This matter requires verification and a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.

3. Withholding of Rs. 22,72,457.00 from the Refund Amount:
The main controversy was the withholding of Rs. 22,72,457.00. The High Court had ruled that price lists in Part I should be followed, not Part IV, as the distributing agent was a wholesale buyer, not a related person. The lower authorities treated the difference between the legally payable duty and the higher amount collected as part of the appellant's profit, thus recalculating the assessable value and duty. The Tribunal referred to conflicting judgments: the Bombay High Court in Roche Products Ltd. v. Union of India and the Karnataka High Court in Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. The Tribunal followed the latter, supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Bata India Ltd., which held that extra amounts collected as duty should be treated as part of the wholesale price. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the reduction of Rs. 22,72,457.00 from the refund.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders to the extent they (a) denied interest from 1-4-1982 till 14-6-1982, and (b) denied any refund for excise duty paid on goods under T.I. 14 and 65. The jurisdictional authority must reconsider the appellant's claim regarding (b) and pay the due interest. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

---