TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake of law under which it had paid extra excise duties. In the wholesale price, on which excise duty had been paid by the petitioner, several post-manufacturing expenses have been included which, naturally, had resulted in the payment of inflated excise duty to the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, addressed a letter dated 23rd November, 1979 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise pointing out that the prices submitted by it till that day were inclusive of diverse post-manufacturing expenses such as sales expenses, distribution expenses, administrative expenses, freight charges etc. It is also mentioned in the said letter that the said price-lists for determination of the assessable value of the various products were submitted under a misapprehension of the correct legal position without realising that those expenses ought not to have been included in the assessable value. In this letter the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which formed the basis of the claim of the petitioner, was referred to. Accordingly the Excise authorities were informed that in view of the correct legal position the petitioner would not be in a position to submit price-lists for determinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of deductions/amendments in respect of the price lists already filed for a proper determination of excise duty liability in respect of deductions claimed under the headings (i) interest on credit sales and (ii) freight and insurance charges together with further claims, deductions or heads of expenditure beyond those dealt in the judgment or order of the Supreme Court, if otherwise admissible". 6. After this direction was given, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise took up the case of the petitioner and by his judgment and order dated 16th of March, 1984 upheld the claim of the petitioner in so far as it related to the deduction on account of freight and octroi. The amount in this respect was Rs. 57,074.48 for the refund period January, 1977 to June 1978 and Rs. 54,781.79 for the refund period July, 1978 to June, 1979. The Assistant Collector refused to allow interest on cash credit as a deductible item. Similarly, he refused to allow interest on fixed deposits as a deductible item and Mr Bharucha, the learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition, has not pressed the claim in respect of interest on fixed deposits. The Assistant Collector also upheld the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the petitioner at least on three points. If this is so I do not see how this petition can be dismissed on the ground that technically the order dated 16th March, 1984 does not disclose an error of law. This petition must be treated as a petition for the purpose of enforcing the refund of excess excise duty paid by the petitioner under a mistake of law which mistake was discovered by it sometime in November, 1979 and which mistake further underlined as far as the petitioner is concerned in respect of at least three items. I, therefore, proceed to treat this as a petition for the purpose of compelling the respondents to refund to the petitioner the amount of excess excise duty paid by it, which the petitioner is found to have paid even by the officer himself of the concerned department under a mistake of law. In that case the dismissal of the claims by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on the ground of limitation mentioned either in Rule 11 or in Section 11B presents no hurdle at all to this Court in granting the relief. 9. Mr. Lokur has, however, contended that the petitioner could not be given relief in respect of a period which is more than three years prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory could not be decreed for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. There is no hard and fast rule, that is what the Supreme Court itself has said in that judgment. 11. Apart from that, I do not see how any part of the claim of the petitioner in the instant case can be defeated on the ground of limitation. If it is accepted, as I am inclined to accept, that the .cause of action accrued to the petitioner in November, 1979 when for the first time it was made aware that post-manufacturing expenses were deductible, then it could have filed a suit within three years after that date. The petitioner has in fact filed this writ petition within one year from the accrual of the cause of action to it. Even if a period of three years is calculated from September, 1980 the petitioner's claim would be a claim from September, 1977. I do not see how the remaining claim for the period of eight months before it could be rejected on a ground which has not been approved as a rule of universal application by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Vallabh Glass Works. I am, therefore, of the opinion that as far as the items on which the contentions of the petitioner have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
