TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal Petitions, the Kerala State Electricity Board is seeking for a direction to refund the amount paid by them as excise duty. 2. Petitioners appeal before the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal was allowed holding that they are not manufacturers and setting aside the orders of the Collector Central Excise. In the light of the judgment, petitioners applied for refund. Their app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the amount. 4. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) = 1997 (5) S.C.C. 536] has taken the view that the relief for refund on the basis of misinterpretation or misapplying the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975 cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainable in that behalf. The writ petition would naturally be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B. under Clause (xi) their Lordships observed that Section 11B applies to all pending proceedings. Ultimately, their Lordships in paragraph 109 directed that in cases where writ petitions are pending as on the date of judgment, and provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avits dated 2-2-1990 stating that the excise duty paid by the KSEB has not been passed on to the consumers of electricity or any other person. 7. Learned counsel fairly concedes that their only course is to seek an extension of time to file their refund application before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek appropriate relief, if any, before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
