Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–Civil Writ Petition No. 2683/98 was filed by M/s Herbertsons Ltd. to quash the notice as also the impugned orders Anx.1 dated 16.8.97 passed by the Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur and Anx. 2 dated 29.7.98 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and to declare that no interest is leviable on the due enhanced bottling fees since the payability of the dues was arrested during the period in which the stay order passed by this Court was in vogue. Therefore, the respondents be directed to make refund of the Rs. 33,91,500/- which have been deposited by the petitioner against the interest, with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

(2). Writ Petition No. 2684/98 was filed by M/s. Udaipur Distillery Company Ltd. to quash the impugned orders Annex.1, 2 and 3 and to declare that no interest is leviable on the due enhanced bottling fees on the petitioner company, since the payability of the due enhanced bottling fees was arrested during the period in which the stay order was in vogue and granted by the High Court and to refund a sum of Rs. 83, 00, 000/- which have been deposited by the petitioner against interest with interest at 24% per annum.

(3). The brief facts of the case are as follows, -

Since these two writ petitions involve the consideration of common question of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment, by consent of parties.

(4). The petitioner-Company, in 2684/98 challenged the Notification dated 16.3.92 issued by the respondents enhancing the bottling fees in the year 1984 by filing the writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed which was lateron confirmed, after hearing the parties in 1986. Ultimately, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.8.95 by the Division Bench comprising of Honble Justice Jas Raj Chopra and Honble Justice P.K. Palli). Though the writ petition was dismissed on 17.8.95 this Court allowed interim stay to continue for six weeks, to enable the petitioner to obtain relief from the Supreme Court of India.

(5). The petitioner filed SLP before the Supreme Court. No interim order was passed. As such the petitioner, without receiving any notice deposited Rs. 1, 41, 88, 972/- against the dues of bottling fees. It is the case of the petitioner that after enhancing the bottling fees by Notification dated 16.3.82, till the writ petition was dismissed, no notice or demand was raised by the respondents and that the petitioner voluntarily deposited the above amount of Rs. 1, 41, 88, 972/-.

(6). For the first time a notice was given on 29.12.95 raising the demand of interest for late payment of dues to the extent of Rs. 1,45,38,464/-. This notice was for the payment of interest. After the rejection of the writ petition, the petitioner moved an application before the Excise Commissioner for waiver of interest u/S. 30AA of the Act, which application was rejected,against which the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court, in which the interim stay was given. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.3.97 in SBCW Petition No. 2983/96 (Honble B.J. Shethna, J.). In the above writ petition, the petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent under Sec. 30A of the Act which was dealt with in detail by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed a special appeal being DBC Spl. Appeal No. 377/97 which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 30.4.97 remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

(7). It is relevant to notice the observations made by the Division Bench:-

``1. ...... The controversy involved in these appeals is that the appellants questioned the imposition of excise duty on them. The imposition of excise duty was questioned by the appellants before this Court unsuccessfully and liability to pay the excise duty was maintained ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document