Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.

Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 03, 1988

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/4698

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/4698
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 03, 1988
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of C.E.

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(39)ELT679TriDel

Excerpt

.....jdr shri chakraborty, that part of the misc. application which related to prayer for issue of direction to the central excise authorities to pay the amount of refund in terms of the tribunal's order, has become infructuous. so far as the prayer for payment of interest is concerned, we observe that there is no provision in the central excises and salt act and the rules issued thereunder for payment of interest. in the case of leukoplast (india) ltd. v. state of goa, reported in 1988 (36) elt 369a (bom.), decided on 3.2.1988, hon'ble bombay high court observed that the petitioners therein, sought, inter alia, a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excess of central and local sales tax paid together with interest at the rate of 21% from the date of collection of the amount to the date of the refund. the hon'ble bombay high court held that the petitioners were entitled to the refund of the excess taxes paid, but the hon'ble court did not grant the relief of interest as prayed in the petition. accordingly, it was directed by the high court that the refund of the duty collected without authority of law should be made within 3 months from the date of the judgment without any interest thereon. in the case of madhusudan gordhandas & co. v. collector of customs, bombay reported in 1987 (29) elt 904, this tribunal observed that section 214 of the income tax act provided for payment of interest on refund of excess tax collected, but in the customs act, 1962, except section 61(2) which provides for payment of interest on unpaid duty in respect of goods warehoused beyond the periods specified therein, there is no other provision in this act for payment of interest on duty refunded. in the circumstances, the applicant's prayer for payment of interest is rejected.3. in view of the above discussions, we dismiss the misc. application filed by the applicants.

Full Judgment

1. By this Misc. Application the applicants have stated that their appeal No. ED/SB/T/A. No. 245/1980-D was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order No. D-107/83, dated 3.3.1983 with consequential relief by way of refund. After the Tribunal's order as aforesaid was received by them, they wrote a number of letters to the Central Excise Authorities, but the refund of Rs. 56,552.59 due to them in terms of the Tribunal's order has not yet been paid. They have prayed that necessary direction may be issued to the respondent-Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar to make the payment of Rs. 56,552.59 with interest at 17-1/2%. When the matter came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 9.9.1988, the matter was adjourned to 3.11.1988 at the request of learned SDR Smt. Zutshi, who wanted to obtain a report from the Collector. When this matter has come for hearing today, none has appeared on behalf of the applicants. Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned JDR has appeared for the respondent. Shri Chakraborty has stated that a refund of Rs. 45,242.23 has already been paid to the applicants in compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 33.1983. The receipt of this amount has been acknowledged by them in their letter dated 2/4.8.1988 addressed to the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar.

They have, however, reiterated their demand for interest on the amount.

2. In view of the statement made by the learned JDR Shri Chakraborty, that part of the Misc. Application which related to prayer for issue of direction to the Central Excise authorities to pay the amount of refund in terms of the Tribunal's order, has become infructuous. So far as the prayer for payment of interest is concerned, we observe that there is no provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Rules issued thereunder for payment of interest. In the case of Leukoplast (India) Ltd. v. State of Goa, reported in 1988 (36) ELT 369A (Bom.), decided on 3.2.1988, Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that the petitioners therein, sought, inter alia, a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excess of Central and Local Sales Tax paid together with interest at the rate of 21% from the date of collection of the amount to the date of the refund. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the refund of the excess taxes paid, but the Hon'ble Court did not grant the relief of interest as prayed in the petition. Accordingly, it was directed by the High Court that the refund of the duty collected without authority of law should be made within 3 months from the date of the judgment without any interest thereon. In the case of Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (29) ELT 904, this Tribunal observed that Section 214 of the Income Tax Act provided for payment of interest on refund of excess tax collected, but in the Customs Act, 1962, except Section 61(2) which provides for payment of interest on unpaid duty in respect of goods warehoused beyond the periods specified therein, there is no other provision in this Act for payment of interest on duty refunded. In the circumstances, the applicant's prayer for payment of interest is rejected.

3. In view of the above discussions, we dismiss the Misc. Application filed by the applicants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of C.E. Same Subject Customs