UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S. HAMDARD (WAQF) LABORATORIES

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 25-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 744 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
M/S. HAMDARD (WAQF) LABORATORIES 
(Civil Appeal No. 1666 of2006) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Central Excise Act. 1944 - s.11-BB - Interest on delayed refimds 
- Adjudication on classification of a sweetened non-alcoholic 
beverage - Thereafter, application by assessee for rejimd of duty -
Rejimd of duty by the competent authority- As no interest was paid 
on refund amount. writ petition by the assessee - High Court directed 
the Revenue to pay interest - On appeal, held: The adjudicatory 
process for refund of duty is required to be concluded within three 
111onths - The liability of the Revenue to pay interest uls. 11 BB 
co111111ences fiwn the date of expiry of three months from the date of 
receipt of application for refimd uls.JJB(l) - In the present case. 
there is delay in grant of rejimd - Assessee is, therefore. entitled to 
interest. 
Ranbaxy laboratories limited v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 
10 SCC 292: 2011 (13) SCR 1 - relied on. 
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 
(1997) 5 SCC 536: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 - distinguished. 
Hamdard (Wakj) Laboratories 
1( Collector of Central Excise, 
Meerut (1999) 6 SCC 617 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1999) 6 sec 617 
referred to 
2011 (13) SCR l 
relied on 
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585 
distinguished 
Para 3 
P:ira 12 
Para 19 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 
2006. 
Yashank P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ritesh Kumar, 
B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellants. 
744 
UNION OF INDIA v. M/S. HAMDARD (WAQF) 
745 
LABORATORIES 
S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pawan Upadhyay, Ms. Anisha 
A 
Upadhyay, Ms. Param Mishra, Kaustuv P. Pathak, Sarvjeet P. Singh, 
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Ms. Neeru Vaid, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. The respondent, M/s. Hamdard (Waqf) 
Laboratories, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of 
various items including Rooh Afza which is a sweetened non-alcoholic 
beverage, and the respondent treated it to have been classified under 
the sub-heading 220 l .90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff 
Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Tariff Act'), but the Revenue did not accept 
the classification claimed by the assessee-respondent on the foundation 
that it was classifiable under the sub-heading 2107 .91 of the Tariff Act. 
2. Because of the cavil relating to classification, steps were taken 
for recovery of the differential duty and keeping in view the demands 
made, the respondent-manufacturer started paying the duty as demanded 
by the concerned authority. Be it stated, the initial adjudicator, that is, 
the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, did not accept the stand 
of the assessee. The said grievance compelled the respondent to prefer 
an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who negatived the stand 
of the assessee .. Being grieved the assessee preferred an appeal before 
the Central, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the 
tribunal'), which, agreed with the view expressed by the fora below and 
consequently dismissed the appeal. 
3. The decision rendered by the tribunal, was called in question by 
the asses see in Civil Appeal No. 7766of1995. The two-Judge Bench in 
Hamdard (Wakj) Laboratories vs. Collector of Central Excise, 
Meerut
1 adverted to the issue of classification pertaining to the product, 
namely, Sharbat Rooh Afza and posed the question whether the said 
"Sharbat" was within the tariff heading 2201.90 as contended by the 
assessee or under heading 2107.91 as the excise authorities would 
maintain and after adverting to various aspects, accepted the stand of 
the assessee that it is a non-alcoholic beverage and repelled the stand of 
the Revenue and resultantly allowed the appeal. 
4. Be it mentioned here that this Cou11 in its judgment dated 41h 
August, 1999 had stated that it falls within the term of heading 2201.90 
1 (1999)6 sec 617 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
746 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R .. 
and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the tribunal and further 
directed for consequential relief to follow. For the sake ofcompleteness, 
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said decision are extracted below:-
"7. The Tribunal would also appear to have concluded that the 
said sharbat was not a beverage but a preparation for the same. 
The fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.