9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty paid under protest. 2. Claim for interest on the duty. 3. Rejection of refund application by Assistant Collector. 4. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5. Denial of opportunity to produce documents. 6. Antidated order dated 9-11-1990. Analysis: The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus for the refund of excise duty paid under protest from 3-7-1971 to 28-2-1986, along with interest at 18%. The petitioner applied for refund following an order by the Custom Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1238/85-C, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur on 9-11-1990. The rejection was based on the lack of supporting documentary evidence for the calculations provided by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed they were not given a fair chance to produce necessary documents to justify their refund claim. The court noted that the petitioners were entitled to consequential reliefs post the Tribunal's order unless statutory amendments affected this right. The court decided not to dismiss the petition on the basis of an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioners to present relevant documents to support their claim for a refund. The court found that the Assistant Collector's rejection of the refund application lacked consideration of the documents submitted by the petitioners in support of their claim. It was deemed essential to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to present these documents adequately. The court highlighted that remitting the matter back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision would not cause injustice to the respondents but denying the petitioners the chance to substantiate their claim could lead to irreversible harm. Therefore, the court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 9-11-1990, and directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the refund application within two months, emphasizing the importance of providing the necessary documents to support the claim. In conclusion, the court granted the petition, setting aside the order rejecting the refund application and instructed the Assistant Collector to review the application with the opportunity for the petitioners to present supporting documents within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the significance of affording the petitioners a fair chance to substantiate their claim for a refund, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
|
