B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) This writ petition raises a question whether this Court should award interest on excise duty found refundable as a result of proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) Petitioner, Prestige Engineering (India) Private Ltd., is engaged in the business of repairing old, defective and unserviceable cops. For the period 17-3-1981 to 7-6-1986 with which period we are concerned herein - excise duty was levied on repair work undertaken by the petitioner, treating it as a manufacturing activity. The petitioner protested against the same. In pursuance of the insistence of the departmental authorities, however, he filed a classification list under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under protest, with respect to repairing of cops. The Assistant Collector treated the "repairing of cops" as "assembling of cops" and held it dutiable under Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act. While it is not necessary to trace the course of proceedings, it is sufficient to state that on 1-8-1984 the Collector of Central Excise passed an order upholding the levy of duty on the said activity. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the CEGAT, which was allowed on 21-5-1986 and the matter remanded to Collector for fresh adjudication. The order dated 21-5-1986, was clarified by the Tribunal on 30-3-1987, which, according to the petitioner, clearly held the levy of duty on the aforesaid activity as impermissible and illegal. The petitioner says that in pursuance of the order of the CEGAT dated 21-5-1986 no further proceedings were taken by the Collector.
(3.) Be that as it may, the petitioner stopped paying duty with effect from 7-6-1986, the date on which he received the order of the Tribunal dated 21-5-1986. He also filed applications for refunding the amount of duty collected during the period 17-3-1981 to 7-6-1986. On 21-12-1987 the Assistant Collector issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the refund claims filed by him be not rejected. On 28-1-1988 the Assistant Collector rejected the petitioner's claims for refund mainly on the ground that he had not complied with the requirements of Rule 173-B of C.E. Rules while paying the disputed duty. Contending that the order of the Assistant Collector is contrary to the orders of the Tribunal dated 21-5-1986 (as clarified on 30-3-1987), and that the reason assigned by him for rejecting the refund claims is not sustainable in law, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus "directing the respondents to refund the amount of excise duty realized from the petitioner in respect of the repaired cops from 17-3-1981 to 7-6-1986 (aggregating to Rs. 15,34,858.93 ) along with interest at such fair and reasonable rate as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court..." A further declaration is sought to the effect that Rule 233-B (1) of C.E. Rules, 1944, is ultra vires the provisions of the Act.;