Petitioner filed an appeal under the Excise Act, 1910, contesting a requirement to deposit 25% of the disputed amount. The Court held that a refund claim could not be adjusted towards this statutory deposit and dismissed the appeal.
Writ petition failed and dismissed; no adjustment of refund claim allowed towards 25% deposit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WPMS No. 2401 of 2020 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 6.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
Petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 11 (1) of Excise Act, 1910. The Excise Commissioner has required him to deposit 25% of the amount sought to be recovered from him, pursuant to the order passed by District Magistrate, Dehradun. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to refund of 24,03,226/from Excise Department, therefore, the said amount be adjusted towards 25% of 85,11,030/-, which is sought to be recovered from him.
Proviso to Section 11 of Excise Act, 1910 provides that deposit of 25% of the disputed amount is a pre-condition for admission of Appeal.
In such view of the matter, the Excise Commissioner was justified in asking the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed amount. The amount, if any, which is liable to be refunded to the petitioner, cannot be adjusted in the 25%, in view of first proviso to Section 11 of Excise Act, 1910.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)
Arpan 16.12.2020
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a refund claim of `24,03,226 can be adjusted towards the 25% deposit required for admission of appeal under the Excise Act, 1910.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj K. Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
