TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Bhat, President]. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar. As a consequence of various orders passed by the Government of India under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, manufacturers of sugar are directed to sell a prescribed quantity of sugar as levy sugar at prices fixed by the Government of India and they are at liberty to sale the remained quantity of sugar in open market a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opened in the name of the District Magistrate of that place. The Court also directed that the amount so deposited will be refundable to the purchasers in case the Writ Petition is dismissed and will be paid to the petitioners if the writ is allowed. On the strength of this order, appellant was selling levy sugar at Rs. 147.53 as fixed by the High Court, appropriating only Rs. 125.34 and depositing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the State Bank of India were paid over to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed refund claim contending that though duty was payable only on the assessable value of Rs. 125.34, as a matter of fact duty had been paid during the period in question on the assessable value of Rs. 147.53 and the excess duty paid should be refunded to petitioner. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be refunded. 3. While it is true that the price of levy sugar was fixed by law at Rs. 125.34, one has to take notice of the subsequent events also. The subsequent event, in this case, was intervention of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court initially passed interim order allowing petitioners to sell levy sugar at Rs. 147.53 per quintal and at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
