1986 (7) TMI 120 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of lozenges under the Excise Tariff.
2. Payment of excise duty under a mistake of law.
3. Refund of excise duty paid under a mistake of law.
4. Applicability of the limitation period for filing a refund claim.
5. The doctrine of unjust enrichment in the context of refund claims.

Summary:

1. Classification of Lozenges under the Excise Tariff:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of lozenges, was assessed for excise duty on lozenges under Item 1-A of the Excise Tariff, which included "candy". The Assistant Collector of Central Excise initially ordered the provisional assessment of lozenges as candy on 13th March 1968, which was later confirmed on 5th April 1968. The petitioner accepted this interpretation and continued to pay excise duty accordingly until 16th June 1977 when lozenges were specifically mentioned as subject to excise duty.

2. Payment of Excise Duty under a Mistake of Law:
The petitioner claimed that the payment of excise duty on lozenges was made under a mutual mistake of law, which was discovered following the Madras High Court's judgment in Parry Confectionery Ltd. v. Government of India (1980), which held that lozenges did not fall under the description of candy. This judgment led the petitioner to realize the mistake and subsequently seek a refund of Rs. 10,54,858 paid as excise duty.

3. Refund of Excise Duty Paid under a Mistake of Law:
The court referenced several precedents, including D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore (1978) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai (1964), which established that an assessee who paid excise duty under a mistake of law is entitled to a refund upon discovering the mistake. The court noted that the petitioner approached the court expeditiously within three months of discovering the mistake, thus there was no delay.

4. Applicability of the Limitation Period for Filing a Refund Claim:
The court held that the period of limitation for filing a refund claim under Article 226 of the Constitution is three years from the date of discovering the mistake of law. The petitioner discovered the mistake in August 1980 and filed the petition in November 1980, well within the limitation period. The court reiterated that the cause of action accrues on the date the mistake of law is discovered.

5. The Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment in the Context of Refund Claims:
The court rejected the contention that refunding the amount to the petitioner would result in unjust enrichment. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in D. Cawasji's case, which held that refunding tax paid under a mistake of law is not unjust enrichment. The court also addressed the argument based on the Supreme Court's decision in State of M.P. v. Vyankatlal (1985), clarifying that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply to excise duty refund claims.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid under a mistake of law and directed the respondents to make the payment by 31st October 1986. There was no order as to costs.