When the issue relating to the payment of interest to any assessee on the tax or duty or refund is governed by the statute, then the writ court under Article 226/227 is not the appropriate remedy to grant/award any interest to the assessee.

1. - By filing this writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner - an assessee under the Central Excise Act (for short hereinafter called 'the Act') seeks following relief's :

"(i) by any appropriate writ or direction, the writ petition may please be allowed with costs;

(ii) by any appropriate writ or direction, the respondents may please be directed to pay tire interest of the delayed repayment of the entire duty amount;

(iii) By any appropriate writ or direction, it may please be held that respondents are guilty of violating the legal provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and thereby also the authorities are under the legal compulsion to pay the complete interest amount on said delayed refund of entire duty amount.

(iv) Any other appropriate relief, which in the facts, circumstances and legal position is deemed proper, may also please be granted."

2. Without going into more factual background of the case, which we consider it as not necessary, and on mere perusal of the relief clause quoted supra, it is clear that writ petitioner has not assailed any specific order passed by any Central Excise Authorities under the Act relating to non-payment of an interest on duty refund in the case of writ petitioner.

3. At the outset, we may take a note of settled principle of law that when the issue relating to the payment of interest to any assessee on the tax or duty or refund is governed by the statute, then the writ court under Article 226/227 is not the appropriate remedy to grant/award any interest to the assessee. Equally well-settled principle of law relating to the grant of interest is that it is governed by either customs, or usage or contract or Statute AIR 1938 PC 67 B.N. Railway's case. If it is governed by the statute, then the person concern has to take recourse to the remedies available under the statute for claiming an interest and then finally reach to writ court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India after exhausting all statutory remedies.

4. In this case admittedly the Act confers a right and also provides a specific remedy to the assessee for claiming interest on the adjudicated dues, if not paid within time after its determination.

5. In the light of this legal position coupled with the the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, it is clear to us that the filing of the writ petition by the writ petitioner is totally a misconceived attempt. It is apart from the fact that the relief claimed in the writ petition itself is so vague and general in nature that it is incapable of being granted to any writ petitioner in any Forum. We notice that no details are mentioned in the relief clause such as (1) when the so-called repayment was due, (2) on what date it was due, (3) how much were the dues in terms of quantification, (4) on which goods it was due, (5) by which order it was payable, (6) how much is the claim for the interest, etc.

6. Indeed even if these details had been specified in the relief clause, which were the bare facts for claiming a specific kind of relief, yet the relief was incapable of being granted in the writ petition because the statutory remedy was available under the Act to approach the authorities specified therein and then pursue those remedies to higher Forum.

7. Be that as it may and without going into these technicalities, we have also perused the record of the case and heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of their alleged claim of interest and, find that the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise on 30-8-2007 (page 26) determined the claim of the writ petitioner so far as refund of duty paid on the exempted goods to them was concerned and after quantifying the amount at Rs. 26,80,834/- directed that cheque for the said amount be issued in favour of the writ petitioner on the same day, i.e., 30-8-2007. It is also stated that this amount has since been paid to the writ petitioner.

8. In the light of this admit