Allowed¶29

Hry. Vidyut Parsaran Nigam v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2026CWP/1017/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interest on delayed refund of excise duty; Section 11BB Central Excise Tax Act 1944; refund of duty deposited under protest; date from which interest payable (three months from 26.05.1995); rate of interest as notified by Government; Articles 226/227 writ petition; Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India; CWP-1017-2005 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; CEGAT appeal dismissed; reference application under Section 35G dismissed; Commissioner (Appeals) order; refund sanctioned 29.12.2000; State PSU petitioner; prescribed proforma objection rejected.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the refunded excise duty amounts (Rs.5,25,750/- and Rs.25,58,800/-) at the applicable rate notified by the Government, from the expiry of three months from 26.05.1995. ¶29

Hry. Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Vs Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed refund of excise duty deposited under protest, despite the respondents' objection that the petitioner did not file the refund application in the prescribed proforma with requisite documents. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The respondents' objection that the petitioner did not file the refund application in the prescribed proforma does not defeat the claim; the respondents withheld the refund while pursuing their own appeal and reference remedies before the Tribunal, as is evident from their letter dated 26.04.1999.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from 26.05.1995, the date on which Section 11BB of the 1944 Act came into force.

¶24

Key takeaways

The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate notified by the Government and prevailing during the period in question.ratio¶28
Petition allowed; respondents directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the refunded amounts at the applicable rate from the date noticed by the Court.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-1017-2005 (O&M), decided 16.02.2026 (Jagmohan Bansal, J., oral; Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. concurring signature): Writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd., a State Government PSU, seeking interest on delayed refund of excise duty deposited under protest (Rs.5,25,750/- and Rs.25,58,800/-). The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the excise duty demand (orders dated 16.12.1986, 07.02.1989 and 13.02.1989); the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi allowed the petitioner's appeals (orders dated 16.09.1987 and 31.10.1990); the department's appeals before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and its reference applications under Section 35G of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 were dismissed. The petitioner sought refund by letters from 17.07.1989 onwards, but refund was sanctioned only on 29.12.2000. Held: the respondents' plea that the petitioner did not apply in the prescribed proforma does not defeat the claim, since refund was withheld while the department pursued appeal and reference remedies; the petitioner was entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from 26.05.1995, the date Section 11BB of the 1944 Act came into force, at the rate notified by the Government prevailing during the period in question. Petition allowed; respondents directed to pay interest at the applicable rate from the date noticed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

202

¶4

CWP-1017-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.02.2026

¶5

HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LTD. ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Ajay Jagga, Advocate with Ms. Neetu Kundu, Advocate and Ms. Aishwarya Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for respondents ***

¶11

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to pay interest on delayed refund of excise duty.

¶13

The petitioner is a State Government Public Sector Undertaking. The respondent issued show cause notices to petitioner raising demand of excise duty on fabrication of steel structure towers. The petitioner to avoid liability of interest and other penal consequences deposited a sum of Rs.5,25,750/- for the period from 06.04.1987 to 11.04.1987 and a sum of Rs.25,58,800/- for the period from 26.05.1988 to 29.07.1989 towards excise duty under protest. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 16.12.1986 confirmed the demand with respect to first period and vide orders dated

¶14

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-1017-2005

¶16

-2-

¶17

07.02.1989 and 13.02.1989 with respect to period from 26.05.1989 to 29.07.1989. The petitioner preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi which came to be allowed vide orders dated 16.09.1987 and 31.10.1990. The petitioner vide letters dated 17.07.1989, 07.08.1989, 05.09.1989, 20.10.1989, 14.02.1990, 19.07.1990 and 06.09.1990 requested the respondent to refund duty deposited under protest. The refund was sought on the ground of favourable orders passed by Appellate Authority. The respondent preferred appeals before Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appeals came to be dismissed. The respondent filed reference applications under Section 35G of Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 (for short ‘1944 Act’) which also came to be dismissed. The petitioner vide letter dated 11.02.1999 again requested respondent to refund already deposited excise duty. For the first time, the respondent vide letter dated 18.03.1999 directed the petitioner to file refund application in the prescribed proforma and furnish evidence of deposit of duty under protest. The petitioner along with letter dated 15.04.1999 submitted copy of show cause notices, orders in original, orders in appeals, T.R. 6 challans bearing stamp of paid under protest. The respondent vide letter dated 26.04.1999 informed the petitioner that their refund application would be processed after adjudication of reference application filed against order of Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The respondent finally sanctioned refund on 29.12.2000.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner did not file applications in prescribed proforma and further did not submit requisite documents, thus, it was not entitled to interest. The petitioner

¶19

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-1017-2005

¶21

-3-

¶22

submitted requisite documents along with application in prescribed proforma on 27.07.2000 qua refund of Rs.25,58,800/- and on 09.08.2000 qua refund of Rs.5,25,750/-. The provision of interest on refund claim came into force w.e.f. 26.05.1995 and with respect to pending applications, interest was payable on the expiry of three months from the date of assent of the President to Finance Bill, 1995. The petitioner cannot claim interest prior to said date.

¶23

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶24

From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner deposited Central Excise Duty under protest. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and petitioner preferred appeals which came to allowed by Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner filed multiple applications seeking refund. From petitioner’s letter dated 11.02.1999, it is evident beyond the pale of doubt that refund was sought by letters dated 17.07.1989, 07.08.1989, 05.09.1989, 20.10.1989, 14.02.1990, 19.07.1990 and 06.09.1990. The respondent never disputed receipt of aforesaid letters and vide letter dated 18.03.1999 directed the petitioner to file application in prescribed proforma and submit show cause notices, orders in original, T.R. 6 Challans evidencing payment of duty etc. The petitioner in its letter dated 18.04.1999 specifically clarified that refund application was filed in prescribed proforma. It appears that respondents did not refund deposited amount because it was pursuing its remedies before Tribunal by way of appeal followed by reference application. This fact is evident from respondent’s letter dated 26.04.1999. The petitioner was entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date of introduction of Finance Bill, 1995. Section 11BB of 1944 Act came into force w.e.f. 26.05.1995. The petitioner was entitled to interest on the expiry

¶25

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-1017-2005

¶27

-4-

¶28

of three months from 26.05.1995. The minimum and maximum limit of rate of interest has been prescribed under Section 11BB, however, actual rate is notified by Government by way of notification. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate as notified by Government and prevailing during the period in question.

¶29

In the wake of above discussion and findings, we are of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to pay interest to petitioner on the aforesaid amount at the applicable rate from the date as noticed hereinabove.

¶30

7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶32

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

February 16, 2026 Deepak DPA

¶35

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶36

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Respondent issued show cause notices to the petitioner raising demand of excise duty on fabrication of steel structure towers.¶13
Prior proceeding
Petitioner deposited excise duty under protest to avoid interest and penal consequences: Rs.5,25,750/- for 06.04.1987 to 11.04.1987 and Rs.25,58,800/- for 26.05.1988 to 29.07.1989.¶13
Prior proceeding
Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for the first period vide order dated 16.12.1986.¶13
Prior proceeding
Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for the second period vide orders dated 07.02.1989 and 13.02.1989 (period printed as 26.05.1989 to 29.07.1989).¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi allowed vide orders dated 16.09.1987 and 31.10.1990.¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner sought refund of duty deposited under protest by letters dated 17.07.1989, 07.08.1989, 05.09.1989, 20.10.1989, 14.02.1990, 19.07.1990 and 06.09.1990, on the ground of favourable appellate orders.¶17
Prior proceeding
Respondent's appeals before Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi came to be dismissed.¶17
Prior proceeding
Respondent's reference applications under Section 35G of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 also came to be dismissed.¶17
Prior proceeding
Vide letter dated 18.03.1999 the respondent, for the first time, directed the petitioner to file refund application in the prescribed proforma with evidence of deposit of duty under protest.¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted copy of show cause notices, orders in original, orders in appeals and T.R. 6 challans bearing stamp of paid under protest along with letter dated 15.04.1999.¶17
Prior proceeding
Vide letter dated 26.04.1999 the respondent informed the petitioner that the refund application would be processed after adjudication of the reference application.¶17
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed applications in the prescribed proforma with requisite documents on 27.07.2000 (qua Rs.25,58,800/-) and on 09.08.2000 (qua Rs.5,25,750/-).¶22
Prior proceeding
Respondent finally sanctioned the refund on 29.12.2000.¶17

Hry. Vidyut Parsaran Nigam v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hry. Vidyut Parsaran Nigam v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C I T Vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

Cit, Chandigarh Vs M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

C I T Vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

M/S Partap Spintex Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Pb.St. Coop Supply and Mark. Fed Vs Chief Commr. of Income Tax and Anr.