TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (3) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice list on the basis of the price at which his goods were sold by the sole distributor to wholesellers, the appellant being under an erroneous impression that this was the price to be considered for the value of the goods for the purposes of excise duty. In August 1972, the appellant claimed that he discovered his mistake in not filing a price list on the basis of the price charged by the appellant to his sole distributor. Thereupon the appellant filed fresh price list from 1st of September, 1972 declaring the value of its product as the price at which the product was sold by the appellant to the distributors. This price list was approved. 4.In September 1973, the appellant filed a price list in which he sought reduction of post-manufac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese heads, by May 10, 1982 and make payment to the petitioners within a period of three months or August 10, 1982 whichever was earlier. The respondents preferred an appeal - being Appeal No. 382 of 1982 before the Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 27-8-1982. 6.Pursuant to the directions given by the High Court in its order of 23-11-1981 the Assistant Commissioner passed two orders in July 1982 calculating the amount of refund due and payable to the appellant. As per his first order which calculated the refund for the said period (1-3-1965 to 27-9-1981 excluding the period for which refund had already been received) in respect of the value of the goods being determined on the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m order in respect of the appellant's claim for interest but kept the question open at the stage of final disposal. Pursuant to the interim order of 21st of September, 1982 the said amount of Rs. 6,20,28,059.98 was withdrawn by the appellant against bank guarantees which were furnished on 1-11-1982. Clearly the above order was passed in view of the order of the High Court dated 23-11-1981 in Writ Petition No. 907 of 1975, which was upheld by the Division Bench. 9.From the order of the Division Bench dismissing the Appeal No. 382 of 1982 in Writ Petition No. 907 of 1975, the respondents had preferred a Special Leave Petition to this Court which was admitted. But no interim stay had been granted. 10.When the appeal from the Division Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to return the amount of Rs. 6,20,28,059.98 earlier withdrawn by it. This order, however, was set aside by this Court on 16-8-1996. Thereupon, in September, 1996, the respondents took out a regular notice of motion before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1938 of 1982 for the purpose of obtaining an interim order for the return of the said amount of Rs. 6,20,28,059.98. The motion was heard along with the main Writ Petition 1938 of 1982. The High Court by its order dated 14th of October, 1996 dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1938 of 1982, vacated the interim order passed on 21-9-1982 and directed the appellant to deposit the sum of Rs. 6,20,28,059.98 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-11-1982. The present appeal ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en to have made any pronouncement on the question of applicability of Section 11B to the appellant's claims in the present case. The applicability of Section 11B to the appellant's claim is the subject matter of the pending departmental appeal and will be decided in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. page 247 (S.C.)]. 14.The appellant has, however, objected to the order directing it to pay interest on this amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-11-1982. On this date the appellant contends that it was entitled, prima facie, to the amount, as Section 11B had not been introduced in the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944. The sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought to our notice. In the case of Kashyap Zip Ind. v. Union of India & Ors. [1993 (64) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) = 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 493], the recovery of disputed duty had been stayed by an interim order of the High Court in the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition and revoking the Stay order, the High Court directed the appellant to pay interest at 17.5% per annum from the date of the order of Stay till recovery. This Court reduced the rate of interest to 12% per annum and on the facts and circumstances directed that this amount should be recovered from 1st of January, 1985 till payment, this being the year in which the matter was finally decided by this Court as a result of which the writ petition came to be dismissed by the High....