TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions and the materials placed, observed that though the writ petitioner/appellant made a challenge to the order of the Central Excise in Appeal Nos.14 & 15/2007 (M-1) dated 23.01.2007, had brought to the knowledge of this Court through the counter affidavit filed by the revenue, the impugned order which is the subject matter in the writ petition had already been stands set aside in the appeal and despite the said order, the writ petitioner did not chose to challenge the order in, non granting interest to the belated payment. 4.The learned Single Judge further observed that, it is true that the writ petitioner/appellant had disclosed in the writ petition about the challenge made before the CESTAT, and therefore, found that the writ petition as framed is not maintainable, and the appeal before the CESTAT also not disclosed at the time of hearing. The learned Judge has also found that even on merits, the plea put forth by the appellant for grant of interim stay is not sustainable in law, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (2008 (230) E.L.T.199 (S.C.)) and in Union of India vs. E.Merck (India) 1998(97) ELT 21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge No.3 of the said order and would submit that the written demand as to the interest @17% has also been extracted in the said order therefore, it is not open to the respondent/revenue to contend that there was no written demand for payment of the interest on the refund of claim. 13.It is the further submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, in the light of the judgements passed in both Writ Appeals which had reached finality that, it is not open to the respondents/revenue to claim that the writ petitioner/appellant is not entitled to any interest. Admittedly the pendency of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.13775 of 2018, the Revenue has refunded a sum of Rs. 59,374/- and in the light of the provisions of the Interest Act, the writ petitioner/appellant is entitled to a reasonable interest for the period from 06.08.1985 to 26.08.1995 and under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the writ petitioner/appellant is also entitled for reasonable interest from 26.08.1995 to 07.09.2009. 14.The learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers and would submit that the order in Original in 19/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to take note of the subsequent developments. 18.The learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the judgments reported in Commr. Of C.Ex., Mumbai v. BOC (I) Ltd., (2008 (226) E.L.T.323 (S.C)) and in Union of India v. Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (2008 (230) E.L.T.199 (S.C.)) and would submit that as per the propositions laid down in the said judgments, interest is not a penalty or punishment at all but it is a nominal accretion of facts, but, a written demand is required and admittedly, it has been observed in the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV Division, dated 07.10.1988 that, such a demand was made by the petitioner and prayed for refund of the interest under the Interest Act, for the period from 06.08.1985 to 26.08.1995 and from 26.08.1995 to 07.09.2009 under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. 19.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/revenue would submit that there is no question of unjust and enrichment arises, in this case, and he would further submit that dehors the challenge made to the impugned order in the form of appeal, the writ petitioner/appellant has cho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest and the considered opinion of this Court is unsustainable for the reason that the judgments of the Apex Court in Commr. Of C.Ex., Mumbai v. BOC (I) Ltd., (cited supra) and in Union of India v. Shreeji Colour Chem Industries (cited supra) would say that interest not a penalty or punishment and it is only a normal accretion of fact. A specific request for interest has also been made by the appellant and the said fact has been recorded in the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 07.10.1988 which has been set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13775 of 1988, dated 21.04.1998 and the said order was confirmed in W.A.No.647 of 1999. 24.In the considered opinion of this Court, the definition of 'debt' under Section 2(c) of the Interest Act, is only a expanded definition and it covers any liability for an ascertained sum of money and includes a debt payable in kind, but does not include a judgment debt. It is not in dispute that the refund claim is already ascertained and paid by the Department of Revenue to the writ petitioner/appellant on 07.09.2009. 25.The appellant has disclosed the filing of the appeal even in the writ petitio....