Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 1988 (4) TMI HC This
Issues:
Challenge to order for refund of excise duty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 68 or 26A. Application for refund beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. Analysis: The petitioner, a private limited company manufacturing copper products, challenged an order by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for refund of excise duty paid on goods classified under Tariff Item No. 68. The petitioner contended that its products should be classified under Tariff Item No. 26A, claiming exemption under Notification No. 119/66. Initially, the Assistant Collector classified the goods under Tariff Item No. 68 in 1976, a decision not appealed against by the petitioner. Subsequently, in 1978, the Government of India held that the goods fell under Tariff Item No. 26A, a decision accepted by the authorities in Bombay. The petitioner then sought a refund of excise duty paid from 1976 onwards, which was rejected due to being beyond the limitation period under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The key issue before the court was whether the duty paid and collected by the excise authorities was in accordance with the law. The petitioner argued that since it paid the duty under protest and the higher authority found the department's view untenable, a refund was justified. However, the court held that the duty was paid as per the department's direction and not under a mistake of law common to both parties. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not appeal the initial classification decision, indicating acceptance of the duty payment under Tariff Item No. 68. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, as the duty payment was not contrary to law and was not made under a mutual mistake. Additionally, the application for refund was rightly rejected due to being time-barred. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
|