TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a matter of right, to the benefit of the said judgment. Merely because some matters were pending before the learned CEGAT cannot give a right to the petitioners to claim, as a matter of right, the refund of excise, when, as a matter of fact, they have failed to challenge the adjudicatory orders. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petitions. The petitions are therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. - Writ Petition No. 3860 with W.P. No. 3918 of 1993 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2010 - B.R. Gavai and S.V. Gangapurwala, JJ. Shri R.M. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri Alok Sharma, A.S.G., for the Respondent JUDGMENT Since the facts and the legal issue involved in both these petitions are identical, the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said amount, an order dated 21st November, 1989 came to be passed, thereby calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,59,221/- along with penalty of Rs. 59,000/- i.e. total Rs. 4,18,221/-. Being aggrieved thereby, the said writ petition has been filed. Insofar as W.P. No. 3918 of 1993 is concerned, the petitioner Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. also manufactures craft paper. On 20th September, 1989 the Respondent No. 3 issued 4 show cause notices demanding excise duty on Sodium Rosinate for the periods 1-11-1987 to 31-3-1988, 1-4-1988 to 30-6-1988 and 1-7-1988 to 31-12-1988 and 1-10-1988 to 31-12-1988. The said 4 show cause cum-demand notices were confirmed by the Collector. In the said proceeding, an amount of Rs. 2,58,05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t rendering a majority view, has observed thus :- iv. It is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a court or tribunal rendered in the case of another person. He cannot also claim that the decision of the Court/Tribunal in another person s case has led him to discover the mistake of law under which he has paid the tax nor can he claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law. A person, whether a manufacturer or importer, must fight his own battle and must succeed or fail in such proceedings. Once the assessment or levy has become final in his case, he cannot seek to reopen it nor can he claim refund without reop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
