TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders dated 28.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ petition No. 338 of 2006 preferred by the appellant. The appellant had challenged the demand of interest which was raised by the respondent-Department on the amount of duty paid belatedly. The High Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant by the impugned judgment giving only a partial relief which is limited to recalculating of the interest in the manner that would be taken note of hereinafter at the appropriate stage. Before that, we would like to state factual matrix which has led to the controversy involved in the instant appeal. There was a dispute about the payment of excise duty by the appellant. Show Cause Notice dated 06.04.1993 was issued to the appellant inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be recovered from the appellant by way of interest. The appellant vide letter dated 17.02.2004 objected to the demand of the said interest. However, this objection of the appellant was overruled and on 03.03.2004, the appellant was again asked to pay the aforesaid amount failing which coercive action was threatened. At this juncture, the appellant approached the High Court of Bombay and contested the validity of the demand of interest raised by the respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2004. The respondent filed its counter affidavit to the said writ petition. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent the following averments were made: - "6. I say that the petitioners are contesting the above co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the High Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties for some time and in the light of averments made by the respondents in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the appellant in the High Court sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to enable the appellant to make appropriate representation raising its grievances. This liberty was granted and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 02.08.2004. Thereafter, the appellant made representation contesting the payment of interest on certain grounds and also in respect of the calculations made by the respondent. At this stage, we may mention that there was an amendment in the Customs Act in the year 1995 which came into effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the duty was passed on 28.01.1994 as already noted above. Having regard to this provision, the interest was payable, if at all, with effect from 26.08.1995. Interest in the sum of Rs. 8,43,62,504/- which were earlier demanded by the respondent was calculated with effect from 28.01.1994. Therefore, the Government re-calculated the interest from 26.08.1995 and inform the appellant that the interest now payable was in the sum of Rs. 4,67,02,251/-. The appellant objected to the payment of this interest as well taking number of pleas in this behalf and again challenged the demand of this interest by filing Writ Petition No. 338 of 2006 which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Before the High Court, the only argum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kudappa Subbanna and Others' [1965 (2) SCR 661] and 'Rajendra Shankar Shukla and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.' [2015 (8) SCALE 384]. No doubt, if the question of law raised in the final Court is a pure question of law and there is no controversy on facts, which are already on record, and on the basis of those facts, the question of law can be determined in the interest of justice, such a question of law could be allowed to be raised even if it was not raised in the Court. However, in the present case, having regard to the manner in which the case proceeded in the courts below, we feel that the appellant cannot be allowed to raise this question. Mr. K.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Departme....