Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati ... vs Union Of India
1991 Latest Caselaw 700 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) In the present writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum on the amount of Rs. l,09,60,000.00 from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

(3) The facts of the case as briefly stated are that the petitioner -imported about 496l.50 MTs. inedible beef tallow of certain specifications of the value of Rs. 2,32,15,852.00 .

(4) The Collector of Customs, Bombay (respondent No. 2) by his order or redemption dated 2831983 held that the said goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the Collector gave option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,09,60,000.00 . The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of redemption fine for the delivery of the goods. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal under Section 129 of the Act before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14th February, 1990. The respondents filed two Sepecial Leave Petitions Bearing Nos. 14605 and 14606 of 1990 against the order dated 14th February, 1990 passed by the Tribunal and the said Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 19th November. 1990. Thereafter, the respondents refunded the amount of redemption fine of Rs. l,09,60,000.00 through two cheques dated 29.1.1991 and 6.3.1991 for Rs. 66,71,670.00 and Rs. 42,88,330.00

(5) By the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum on the above mentioned amount of Rs l,09,60,000.00 from thedate of deposit till the date of refund. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had raised the amount as loan from a Nationalised Bank for deposit with the respondents and the petitioner was liable to pay interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum to the Bank and that too on quarterly rest basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to claim the same rate of interest from the respongent In support of his contention the learned Counsel referred to a judgment of Bombay High Court m Key Foam Limited v. Union of India, 1988 (34) E L T. 449 (Bombay). In this case the respondents were directed to refund the amount with interest at the rite oF 18%, per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund. He also referred to a un-reported judgment of Calcutta High Court in matter No 398/84 M/sBiswanath Traders & Investment (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, decided on 22nd June, 1987. In this case also Interest at the rate of 18^ per annum was awarded on the amount of refund. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an interim order dated 7th March, 1991 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2093/91. In this interim order stay prayed for by the Union of India was granted subject to the condition that in case the High Court order is sustained, the respondents would be entitled to 15% per annum interest till actual payment.

(6) Mr. Madan Lokur, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the Central Excise & Customs Laws (Amendment) Bill 1991, which has now become an Act, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any amount of Interest as the same will result In unjust enrichment. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents has no force inasmuch as the amount on which the interest is being claimed has already been refunded to the petitioner before the said Act came into force. Besides in the writ petition it has clearly been stated that the petitioner had raised the amount in question as loan from a Nationalised Bank and he was liable to pay interest at the rate of 17.5%, per annum to the Bank and that too on quarterly rest basis.

(7) Here it will also be relevant to refer to a Divison Bench judgment of this Court in M/s.Parekh Prints & Ors. v. U.O.I. & Ors. . In this case the. Bench held that the petitioners were not entitled to withhold the amount of additional excise duty after having collected the same from the consumers and since the petitioners had utilised the amount of said duty for their own business purposes, the Union of India was allowed to encash the bank guarantees pertaining to the said amount of excise duty and it was held that the Union of India was entitled to interest on this amount at the rate of 17.5% per annum from the date the duty became payable.

(8) In view of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed. We, therefore, direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum on the amount of Rs. l,09,60,000.00 from the date of deposit of the said amount till it was refunded.within four weeks from to-day. Petition allowed.