2016 (7) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t on delayed refund amount within a time bound period. 2. The petitioner has pointed out to this Court that an order was passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai on 652014. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the present petitioner. It granted refund in the sum of Rs. 90,47,661/. The Tribunal directed the amount to be released. But what has transpired is, that after the Tribunal's order to that effect dated 652014, the amount was paid by the respondent No.3 on 16-2-2015. 3. The petitioner submits that on this delayed payment they were entitled to interest. They made a representation, copy of which is at AnnexureD (page 28) to the writ petition. They stated that the refu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have fallen on deaf ears is the complaint. That is why the present petition. 5. During the course of the argument, Mr. Nadkarni has tendered a compilation of orders, including the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranbaxy (supra). He also invites the attention of the Bench to an order passed on 1-3-2016 in Writ Petition No.6339 of 2015 (Tien Yuan India Private Limited Vs. The Union of India). 6. Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that a writ petition simpliciter for a money claim does not lie and no mandamus can be issued directing payment of sum in money. He places reliance upon a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the....