Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2006 (4) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ics and Articles) as per Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are chargeable to Central Excise accordingly. Govt. of India had introduced the Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax Scheme) with effect from 1-3-86 thereby allowing certain benefits for duty paid on inputs for discharging Central Excise duty on the final product in the manufacture of which the said inputs are used. Government was empowered to issue notification in this regard under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for specifying the inputs and final product on which the scheme of Modvat was applicable. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that from time to time various notification have been issued enlarging the scope of Modvat scheme. When the new tariff came into force with effect from 1-3-86, the goods manufactured by the petitioner namely HDPE/PP tapes, fabrics and sacks were classified under Chapters 54 and 63 i.e. Textiles and Textile Articles and since these products were not specified in the notification issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, petitioner was not entitled to avail of the Modvat credit. However, it was the case of the petitioner that the product in question should be c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for personal hearing on 1-12-99 and the show-cause notice was disposed of vide order dt.10-12-99. By this order petitioner was allowed Modvat credit of Rs. 3,30,644/- out of the total claim of Rs. 32,34,650/- and remaining claim of the petitioner for Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 29,03,971/- was disallowed. Copy of this order dated 10-12-99 is Annexure J. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner again preferred a Writ Petition No. 418/00 before this Court and it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though this petition was filed on 18-2-00 the matter was not heard as the respondents failed to file reply in time. Finally the said writ petition was allowed vide Annexure K dt. 10-5-02 and respondents were directed to grant similar benefits to the petitioner as was granted to other similarly situated assessees in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in the case M/s. Primo Pick N Pack Limited v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 4486/99, decided on 15-12-2000 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (M.P.)]. Respondents were directed to take action and pass appropriate orders within 6 weeks. 6.It is the case of the petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, seeks a direction to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner. Judgments relied upon in this regard by Shri Asthana are : (i)         Elpro International Ltd. and Others v. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance and others, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (ii)        Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Collector of Customs (Preventive) v. Kuljit Singh, 1993 (67) E.L.T. 238 (Cal.). (iii)       Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Pune, 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) and various other judgments annexed with the petition. 9.Accordingly Shri Asthana submits that petitioner is entitled to interest on the delay caused by the respondents in refund of the amount of Modvat credit illegally withheld and a direction be issued to the respondents to make payment of the aforesaid amount. He also placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Rewa Gases Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 318 (M.P.) in support of his contentions. 10.Shri V.K. Sharma, learned Assist. Solicito....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im in part with regard to interest can be agitated by the petitioner now in this petition and the law laid down in the case of Kirloskar (supra) will not apply. 13.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 14.As far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, there is not dispute between the parties. Petitioner claims interest on the amount from 2-7-90 upto the date of its payment i.e. 25/28-6-02 when the amount of Modvat credit to  the tune of Rs. 29,03,971/- was directed to be refunded. Claim of the petitioner is based on general principle with regard to delay in settlement of the claim of the petitioner so also on the basis of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, I will take up for consideration claims for both the periods separately. 15.Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to interest on delayed payment was inserted by Section 75 of the Finance Act of 1995 with  effect from 26-5-1995 and, therefore, with effect  from the date three months subsequent thereof petitioner claims interest on the basis of notification issued by the Central Govt. in accordance with the aforesaid prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rewa Gas Private Limited (supra) a Bench of this court has allowed interest but the fact\remains that another Bench of this court in the case Kirloskar (supra) has held that in case the claim for interest is not based on any statutory provision like Section 11BB but is based on general principles, writ petition claiming the aforesaid benefit under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The question, therefore, is can this court consider the claim for interest for this period in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment in the case of Rewa Gas Private Limited has been stayed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rewa Gas Private Limited, 2003 (153) E.L.T. A168 (S.C.) and, therefore, relief claimed on the basis of this judgment cannot be considered as the judgment in question is stayed by the Supreme Court. That apart, in this case the earlier judgment in the case of Kirloskar (supra) is not taken note of. In the case of Kirloskar (supra) similar claim seeking a writ of Mandamus for interest on delayed payment of excise duty was made. In the said case various judgments were cited by the assessee to show that on delayed payment interes....