TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (12) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ership firm duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner is a re-roller of stainless steel product namely known as 'Patta'. The product is roughly shaped. It is even in shape, size and thickness. The petitioner installed small equipment which are capable of rolling only small piece of raw materials from 2 to 10 kg. in weight. The Rolling equipment or machinery installed by the petitioner are not strip mills and there is no provision of facilities for coiling and de-coiling the rolled product. The product manufactured by the petitioner was incorrectly classified by the respondent No. 4 as sheet or strips falling under sub-item (ii) of Tariff Item No. 26-AA of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 22-1-1986 and two appeals by common order dated 11-2-1986 filed by the petitioner and 15 other persons. The appeals were allowed with certain directions by the order dated 22-1-1986 and 11-2-1986, which have been placed on the record as Ex. 1. By virtue of the appellate orders the petitioner claimed refund of the excise duty paid under protest or paid by mistake of law. The petitioner submitted an application on 27-1-1986 for refund of Rs. 1,06,810/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The application for refund dated 27-1-1986 has been produced on the record as Ex. 2. The applications of some of the applicants for-refund was accepted in pursuance of the order dated 22-1-1986 and 11-2-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised by the petitioner in the light of the directions given by the Collector (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-6-1987 and again rejected the claims of the petitioner and other persons by his order dated 18-9-1987. A copy whereof has been placed on the record as Ex. 5. 6. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi and the Collector (Appeals) accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner by his order dated 20-9-1988 and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jodhpur dated 18-9-1987 and directed that consequential relief may be granted to the petitioner. A copy of the. order dated 20-9-1988 has been produced on the record as Ex. 6. 7. Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pheld. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents that the excise duty charged from the petitioner in excess may be refunded back to him with interest. Mr. N.N. Mathur, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the writ petition. 9. I have heard both the learned counsels and have also perused the record. 10. The short question which requires consideration in this case is that after the contention of the petitioner being upheld on a chequered history of litigation, the petitioner is entitled to refund with interest or not. From the facts mentioned above, it is apparent that a number of litigations ensued for classification of the product of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner was classified under Tariff Item No. 26-AA (1a) and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to refund. The petitioner has claimed refund along with 24% interest and in support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel has invited my attention to Redihot Electricals v. Union of India & Ors. - (1989) 30 STL 103 (Del.); D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore & Ors. -1985 (19) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Auriaya Chambers of Commerce - (1986) 18 STL 1 (SC). 13. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Auriaya Chambers of Commerce, it was observed as under :- "Where indubitably there is in the dealer legal title to get money refunded and where the dealer is not guilty of any latches and where there is no specific prohib....