1996 (9) TMI 140 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Assessment of duty and refund claims.
3. Limitation period for filing refund claims.
4. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Equitable relief and jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing the Order of the Appellate Tribunal:

The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 7-12-1984 by the Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the Collector's order rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the application was filed beyond the six-month period. The Tribunal's order is Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

2. Assessment of Duty and Refund Claims:

The petitioner, a Public Limited Company dealing in Biris, claimed that the duty was assessed at Rs. 3.60 per thousand Biris instead of Rs. 2.80 per thousand Biris as per Notification No. 32/79 dated 1-3-1979. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,43,035/- on 16-3-1979, which included an excess amount of Rs. 31,785.60 due to ignorance of the notification. The refund applications were filed on 24-12-1979, after realizing the mistake.

3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:

The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims on the ground that they were filed beyond the six-month period stipulated under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The petitioner argued that the applications were filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the notification.

4. Application of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:

Section 11B mandates that refund claims must be filed within six months from the date of deposit, with an exception if the duty was paid under protest. The petitioner did not pay the duty under protest, and thus, the six-month limitation applied. The Supreme Court's decisions in M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Customs supported the rejection of claims filed beyond the stipulated period.

5. Equitable Relief and Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India:

The petitioner relied on A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1037, arguing for equitable relief. However, the court held that it could not direct authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. emphasized that authorities must act within the law, and the High Court cannot direct otherwise under Articles 226 and 227.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that no relief could be granted to the petitioner as it was not permissible under the law. The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.