Case Details: Unipack vs. Additional Commissioner CGST, Alwar (2025) 36 Centax 64 (Raj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- K.R. Shriram, CJ. & Maneesh Sharma, J.
- S/Shri R. Krishnan, VC with Shankar Lal Verma & Nirmal Kumar Goyal, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Kinshuk Jain with Saurabh Jain, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the denial of interest on excise duty that had been collected in excess due to the inclusion of non-manufacturing turnover. While the refund of excess duty was granted after over eleven years, the claim for interest was rejected. The petitioner contended that the excess collection was without authority of law and that interest at 12% per annum was payable from the date of each payment until refund. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the department’s collection and retention of excess excise duty was without authority of law and directed that interest at 12% per annum be paid from the date of each actual payment of excess duty until its refund. The Court observed that denying interest contrary to Supreme Court rulings was arbitrary and unjust. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to refund the excess excise duty with applicable interest.
List of Cases Cited
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 9, 15, 20]
- Redihot Electricals v. Union of India — 1989 (43) E.L.T. 253 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 9, 16, 20]
- Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 18, 20]
- Swastik Metals v. Union of India — 1990 (49) E.L.T. 45 (Raj.) — Relied on [Paras 9, 17, 20]
- Vinoba B. Jain v. JT. CIT — (2024) 462 ITR 58 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 18, 20]
