Dismissed

Mehta Tubes Limited, v. Union of India

Gujarat HC28 Jun 2018SCA/6534/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a special civil application seeking sanction and release of interest on rebate claims under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held the petitioner's approach grossly belated given the 8 to 10-year delay without a worthwhile explanation. Mere automatic entitlement to interest or officer liability did not justify the inaction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mehta Tubes Limited, Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/6534/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6534 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

MEHTA TUBES LIMITED,

¶6

Versus UNION OF INDIA

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

D K GOHIL(7451) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

¶12

and

¶13

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 28/06/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

¶16

1.Petitioner has prayed for a prayer to the
respondents to sanction and release interest payable
to the petitioner in terms of section 11BB of the
Central Excise Act, 1944.

¶17

2.Case of the petitioner is that during the period
between February, 2007 to January, 2009, he had filed
a total of 95 rebate claims claiming refund of a sum
of Rs.1.32 crores (rounded off) from the department.

¶18

Some of these claims were granted. Rebate claim of
Rs.30.40 lakhs was rejected. Upon appeal, the
Appellate Authority by order dated 16.08.2010,

¶19

granted such claim also. According to the petitioner,

¶20

such refund would attract interest to be
automatically paid to the petitioner, despite which,

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

C/SCA/6534/2018 ORDER

¶23

the authorities did not grant interest. Further
representation was therefore made on 06.07.2010,
which was followed by multiple representations made
between the year 2012 to 17. Finally, since interest
was not paid, this petition came to be filed.

¶24

3.In our opinion, the approach of the petitioner
to the Court is grossly belated. Clearly, the rebate
claims were allowed in the year 2008 and 2009. In
one case, where the claim was dismissed by the
Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner allowed the
appeal in the year 2010. Thus, in all cases, the
petitioner was aware that the authorities have
allowed the rebate without interest since the year
2008/2009 and in an isolated case, sometime in the
year 2012. Present petition is filed in the year
2018 i.e. nearly 8 to 10 years later. In the
meantime, the petitioner merely went on making
representations to the authorities. It may be that
in a given case like the present one, the petitioner
may first try to persuade the authorities for which
representation may be made, however, the petitioner
was not required to wait indefinitely for the reply
of the authorities. In any case, multiple repeated

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

C/SCA/6534/2018 ORDER

¶27

identical representations would not explain delay.
If the petitioner was required to file a civil suit,
the same would have become time barred long back.
Merely because the writ petition is maintainable,
would not mean that the same would be entertained at
any point of time without any reference to delay and
laches. The petitioner has not offered any worthwhile
explanation for not taking steps to agitate his legal
grounds for close to 10 years. Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that granting of interest is
automatic. The CBEC circular prescribes that if the
concerned officer does not grant interest, he would
be personally responsible. Neither of these two
contentions explain delay. If despite entitlement of
interest the authorities do not grant the same to the
petitioner, the petitioner had to agitate the issue
before the competent forum within a reasonable time.

¶28

4. In the result, petition is dismissed.

¶29

(AKIL KURESHI, J)

¶30

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶31

ANKIT SHAH

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Mehta Tubes Limited, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mehta Tubes Limited, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Messrs Bloom Dekor Limited Vs Union of India

Bajrang Lal Sharma Vs Union of India

Shri Rasiklal S Marida Vs Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Maulikkumar Shaileshbhai Pandya Vs Ashaben Maulikkumar Pandya

Kanubhai Babubhai Punjiram Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Vasant K Himsu Vs Union of India