TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 4 (a) is the price charged by the manufacturers to distributors. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II Division approved the revised price list effective from 1-9-1972. The party under their letter dated 18-9-1972 filed a revised price list for the period from 1-3-1971 to 31-8-1972 stating that the price lists earlier filed by them and approved by the department were through misconstruction. The party also lodged their regular refund claim for ₹ 53,86,474.79 on 27-9-1972. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II Division rejected their claim vide his Order No. V (411)15-8/73/2374, dated 25-2-1974, stating that the assessment during the material period has been finalised on the basis of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue and entitle the Central Government to retain the excess of excise duty illegally collected without authority, (iii) Article 265 of the Constitution says that money not belonging to Government or illegally collected should be refunded and Section 72 of the Contract Act states that if money is paid by mistake, it should be refunded it is true that the prices were declared by them and approved by the Department. Department acted under a mistake and under error approved the price list, (v) the products were sold to their distributors who were independent buyers and transactions were at arms length, (vi) the Supreme Court had over-ruled the earlier decision of Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in its Voltas Judgment and after the Voltas Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment laid down what the law was in the past and also for the future as per the Central Excises and Salt Act. It is not necessary that misconstruction cannot be detected afterwards in view of new developments coming to light. The party accordingly detected that in the past they had misconstrued the law relating to assessment and the Voltas judgment enlightened them about it. But refund arising out of misconstruction is subject to time-limit laid down in the Central Excise Rules. From this angle there was misconstruction of law on the part of the party and refund will be admissible subject to compliance with Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944. For this purpose what is relevant or material is the date of payment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
