TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riefly be stated as under : 3. The respondents were served with a show cause notice dated 4-3-83 by the Assistant Collector vide which duty demand of Rs. 1,63,858.20 leviable on 451.400 MT of billets made by them from ingots received at nil rate of duty, was raised from them. After getting their reply to that notice that Additional Collector who adjudicated the said notice, confirmed the demand vide order dated 5-2-1986 on them. They deposited the duty amount under protest but later on did not file any appeal against that order. They, however, filed a writ petition in the Honourable Patna High Court wherein they claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 66/73 dated 1-3-73 in respect of steel ingots and the same was allowed vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 5-2-1986 was never challenged before any higher forum in appeal or in a writ petition before the High Court, the same had become final and as such no refund of the duty amount deposited under that order could be legally allowed to the respondents. Regarding the judgment of the Patna High Court, the learned SDR has contended that the same pertained to the different goods and the period and as such could not be of any help to the respondents for claiming the refund of the duty amount in question. He has also relied on the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). 7. Admittedly the duty amount in question was deposited by the respondents in pursuance of the adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition before the Honourable High Court or in any appeal before the higher forum. That order attained finality and became binding of the respondents. Therefore, on the basis of the order of the Honourable High Court, the respondents could not be legally allowed the refund of that duty amount which they deposited in pursuance of the adjudication order of the Additional Collector dated 5-2-1986 and which as observed, was accepted by them for having not challenged the same in appeal or in writ petition before the higher forum. 9. Even if it is assumed for sake of arguments that the said adjudication order of the Additional Collector dated 5-2-1986 was erroneous in law but still the same was got to be set aside by the respondents by fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudication order of the Additional Collector dated 5-2-1986. The judgment of the Honourable Patna High Court in their writ petition for an earlier period, in their favour, did not automatically had the effect of invalidating or nullifying the adjudication order of the Additional Collector. Therefore, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) directing the Additional Collector to re-examine the refund claim of the appellants on the basis of the order of the Honourable High Court, must be held to be erroneous in law and as such deserves to be set aside. 10. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim of the respondents on the ground that the judgment of the Honourable Patna High Court in a writ petition filed by them, was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
