9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 4th of September, 1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division 'P', on an application made by the petitioner company for refund of excise duty which, according to it, was wrongly paid by it. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of copper rods, flats, bus bars, rectangular rods, all having thickness about 10 mm, hereinafter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bhandare, appearing in support of the petition, that the petitioner, in fact, asked for an appealable order and the Assistant Collector obliged the petitioner by passing an order on 7th of April, 1976. Against this order, the petitioner did not prefer an appeal. 3. Subsequently, in the month of May, 1978, the petitioner filed a fresh classification list, showing therein that the said goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Rules for the refund of the excise duty paid by the petitioner company on the goods manufactured by it under Tariff Item No. 68. The refund was claimed for the period from 1976 onwards. It was the contention of the petitioner company in its refund application that in the light of the decision of the Central Government, which decision has now been accepted by the authorities in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity. The question that has to be decided in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the duty paid by the petitioner and collected by the excise authorities was in accordance with law or not. It is only when the duty is collected without the authority of law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. The said jurisdiction can al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Tariff Item No. 68. It is true that the respondents did not accept the petitioner's contention. It was, therefore, open, indeed it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner, to challenge the view taken by the department in an appeal, which the petitioner did not do. It is, therefore, clear to me that the petitioner has not made out a case for the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
