1 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.2 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1209 OF 1994 M/s.Mulji Devshi & Co. ).PETITIONERS Versus 1.Union of India & Ors. )..RESPONDENTS Mr. Pankaj A. Sawant with Ms. Trupti M. Kapadia and Mr. V.C. Murlidharan i/b. Joy Legal Consultants for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rao with Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondents CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 5th February, 2010 P.C. By the present Review Petition the petitioners pray that they should be granted interest on the duty drawback for the period from 1st June, 1989 to 31st May, 1990 i.e. from the date of the application for refund of duty drawback till payment. 2. Our attention is first invited to Section 75A of the 2 Customs Act which came into force with effect from 26th May, 1995. In the instant case even assuming that this Court has now allowed the claim for duty drawback that would relate back to the date of the claim. At the relevant time there was no provision for interest. Consequently, in our opinion, it will not be possible to allow interest in terms of Section 75A of the Customs Act. 3. Alternatively, on behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that considering the judgment of this Court in Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 344 (BOM.) and another Division Bench of this Court in Parmanand Industries vs. Union of India, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 726 (Bom.) that this Court has taken the view that interest would be payable. It is true that in both the judgments interest has been awarded. That would be on the principle that if moneys are due and payable then interest on the said amount which was lying on the hands of the respondents must carry some interest. Normally considering the provisions of the Interest Act the Court would consider interest given for fixed deposit by nationalised banks in the absence of 3 any provision by contract or statute. 4. In the instant case we allowed the claim of the petitioners on the basis that another exporter had been allowed draw back facility. Awarding of interest would be in the discretion of the Court and this Court did not think it fit to grant interest. The question of interest was also not argued. 5. The Review must arise from an order of the Court disclosing an error apparent. In the instant case as the Court itself declined to grant interest the question of exercising review jurisdiction would not arise. Review Petition accordingly disposed off. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (FERDINO I.REBELLO,J.)