M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, which rejected their refund claim of Rs. 5,30,95,620/-. The petitioner contended that this amount represented interest/compensation due from the respondents, arising from a previous judgment dated 21.01.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.18012 of 2016. This prior judgment had directed payment of compensation for loss of capital and delayed interest. The respondents' appeals against this prior judgment, including to the Supreme Court, were dismissed. The impugned order, while termed a rejection of refund, calculated specific amounts of interest/compensation.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 14.09.2023. The Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,47,72,600/- and a further amount of Rs. 3,83,23,020/-, as detailed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay further interest calculated till the date of disbursement. This payment was to be made within eight weeks from the receipt of a web copy of the order. The Court reasoned that the respondents had no option but to pay the interest/compensation, as their appeals against the original judgment directing such payment had been dismissed by higher courts. The principle established is that once a claim for interest/compensation is upheld by multiple judicial pronouncements and appeals are dismissed, the revenue must comply with the directive.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.09.2023, which rejected the petitioner's claim for refund of Rs. 5,30,95,620/-, is legally sustainable, considering it relates to interest/compensation awarded in a prior judgment? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, despite its wording, dealt with the calculation of interest/compensation as mandated by the High Court's judgment in W.P.(MD)No.18012 of 2016, dated 21.01.2020. They emphasized that the respondents' subsequent appeals against this judgment were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court, confirming the entitlement to interest and compensation. The petitioner relied on the specific directions in the 2020 judgment regarding interest rates (9% and 6%) and the period of calculation. Respondents' arguments: The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents was not in a position to deny the dismissal of their appeals. The judgment does not record any other specific arguments made by the respondents against the petitioner's claim for interest/compensation.