IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA, JJ.
Jord Engineers India Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 6112 of 2024
Decided On : 13-06-2024
Interest - Petition for Interest - Central Excise Rules 1944 - Sections 57(1), 57(4), 57(5) - The court interpreted the provisions regarding interest on Cenvat credit and the authority of officers during searches, concluding that the petitioners were entitled to interest from the date of deposit due to coercion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners deposited Rs.12,90,000 under coercion during a search by DGCEI, which was later appropriated against a demand for Cenvat credit. They sought interest on this amount from the date of deposit after the demand was quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to interest from the date of deposit as the amount was collected coercively and the authority had no power to demand it during the search.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the amount deposited under coercion from the date of deposit until the refund was granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interest is payable from the date of deposit when the amount was collected without authority, emphasizing the need for compensation for the deprivation of funds.
Result: The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition.
ORDER :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following prayers :-
(B) Any other reliefs deem fit, proper and incidental in the facts of the present case may kindly be granted
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 An intelligence search was conducted on 6.4.1999 by the officer of the DGCEI at the premises of the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have received certain raw materials based on purchase invoices, without actually physically receiving any material and availed Cenvat credit. However, no discrepancy whatsoever was found on the physical stock verification vis-a-vis statutory records maintained by the petitioner.
2.2. It is case of the petitioners that the petitioners were constrained to deposit an amount of Rs.12,90,000/- from their PLA Cenvat Account vide entry No. 2 dated 7.4.1999 and from their Cenvat Credit A/c. vide entry No. 23 by the officers of DGCEI.
2.3 The show cause notice dated 7.10.1999 was issued seeking to recover an amount of Rs.48,44,855/- towards Modvat/Cenvat Credit availed along with interest and penalty from the petitioners. The show cause notice reads as under:-
(a) modvat amounting to Rs.48,11,855/- (Rupees forty eight lakh eleven thousand eight hundred fifty five only) being the credit taken on their Inputs, which were taken as detailed in Annexure Al of the Show Cause Notice should not be disallowed and recovered from them under clause (i) read with clause(ii) of Rule 57 1(1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944.
(b) penalty equal to the amount of modvat credit determined to be disallowable and recoverable, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provision of Rule 57 1(4) ibid;
(c) interest at the rate of 20% on the amount of Modvat credit determined to be disallowable and recoverable, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provision of Rule 571(5) ibid;
(d) why the amount of RS. 12,90,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh ninety thousand only) paid by them through their P.L.A. Entry No. 2 dated 7.4.99 and through their modvat account Entry No. 23 dated 7.4.99 should not be appropriated against the demand;
(e) why the land, building, plant, machinery, material conveyance or any other things used in connection with the manufacture/production, storage, removal or disposal of such goods or nah other excisable goods of such land or in such building or produced or manufactured with such plant, machinery, material of things should not be confiscated under Rule 173-Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.”
3. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the same was adjudicated vide order dated 26.8.2004 and the amount deposited by the petitioners on 7.4.1999 was appropriated towards the demand raised in the order in original which reads as under:-
The court established that interest on Cenvat credit is due from the date of deposit when collected under coercion, highlighting the limits of authority during searches.
Interest on delayed refunds under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act is payable only after three months from the date of receipt of the refund application, not from the date of deposit.
Deposits made at departmental insistence during investigation under mistaken duty notion are not 'duty' under Section 11B; refundable with 12% interest from deposit to refund date.
Deposits made during investigation at department's insistence under mistaken duty notion are not 'duty'; Section 11B inapplicable; refundable with 12% interest from deposit to refund date.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to interest as calculated by the petitioner and confirmed by the respondent, and is also entitled to interest durin....
The court established that interest on delayed refunds of pre-deposits can be claimed at 12% per annum based on judicial precedents, despite the absence of a specific statutory provision at the time.
Trustees cannot retain interest earned on funds held in trust; they must account for all earnings to the beneficiary.
The court ruled that interest is payable on delayed refund of pre-deposit after three months from the application date, as pre-deposits do not equate to duty or penalty payments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.