D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. m.c. jain, j.1. by this writ petition, the petitioner seeks refund of the excise duty amounting to rs. 20,39,139.40 along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit or recovery in compliance of the order of the collec tor (appeals), central excise & customs, new delhi dated 21.6.84 (annx. 3).2. the assistant collector, central excise & customs, kota by his order dated 2.1.1980 created a demand against the petitioner holding that the tyre cord is classified under t.i. 68 and not under t.i. 18 and appropriate duty under the said central excise tariff was ordered to be deposited. in appeal, the petitioner was successful and the view of the assistant collector was set aside and the tyre cord was classified under the tariff item no. 18. under the orders of the assistant collector, the petitioner had paid the excise duty. the petitioner is now entitled to the refund of the amount of excise duty deposited or recovered from the petitioner for which the petitioner is held to be not liable.3. on behalf of the respondents, it is urged that the respondents had preferred an appeal before the customs and central excise gold control appellate tribunal, new delhi. admittedly, no stay order has been passed by the tribunal so far. as a matter of fact, the petitioner is entitled to restitution. in view of this situation, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the excise duty recovered from it, which was not recoverable in view of the fact that the tyre cord has been classified under the tariff item no. 18 and only in accordance with that, excise duty was chargeable as found in appeal. the quantum of excise duty refundable to the petitioner is not in dispute. the only dispute is with regard to the liability for the payment of interest. the petitioner's claim is for interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit. its case is that the application for refund of the amount was made in the year 1984. the aforesaid amount was not refunded. as such the petitioner has suffered loss of interest.4. in this connection, in our opinion, it would be proper to award interest from the date of filing of the writ petition @ 12% per annum.5. this writ petition is allowed. the respondents are directed to refund the amount of excise duty amounting to rs. 20,39,139.48 together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 5.10.1987. the petitioner is further agreeable to furnish bank guarantee. accordingly, it is further ordered that the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the petitioner on its furnishing a bank guarantee in respect of the amount and in case, the respondents succeed in appeal before the tribunal, payment of the aforesaid amount of guarantee shall be made immediately. two months' time is granted to the respondents for making payment to the petitioner as above.6. the parties are left to bear their own costs.