1990 (2) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the claim of refund made by the petitioner/Company before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was partly disallowed, may be sustained in law and refund of the duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 may be directed by a writ of mandamus.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, sought a refund of duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner manufactured and sold parts and accessories of tractors and hydraulic gear pumps. The issue arose when the products of the company were wrongly classified under Chapter Heading 87.0K of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, instead of the correct classifications under Chapter Heading 87.08 and 84.13. The petitioner paid duty for various periods, and while the refund was allowed for one period, it was rejected for others by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The rejection was based on the ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 11-B of the Act.

The Court considered the principle established by judicial decisions in India, particularly citing the case of Patel India (P) Ltd., which held that an unauthorized levy of tax or duty is liable to be refunded if demanded, even if there is a prescribed period under Section 11-B of the Act. The Court emphasized that the right to claim refund of an unauthorized levy cannot be taken away merely due to a prescribed period. It further referenced a similar case involving I.T.C. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, where the Court directed a refund for payments made under a mistake of law, reiterating that amounts paid under a mistake of law are liable to be refunded within the prescribed period under the general law of limitation.

The Court concluded that the payment made by the petitioner was under a mistake of law, as the duty was not paid in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff Act. It held that the levy was unauthorized and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a refund, rejecting the argument that allowing the refund would unjustly enrich the petitioner. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the refund to be made within one month from the date of the order.