2012 (10) TMI 1158 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and 33/2008-C.E.
2. Entitlement of petitioners to full refund based on original Notification No. 39/2001-C.E.
3. Applicability of principles of promissory estoppel.
4. Right of petitioners to approach the court directly without appealing against refund rejections.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notification Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and 33/2008-C.E.:
The petitioners challenged the amendments made by Notification Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and 33/2008-C.E., which altered the basis of excise duty exemption from "the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of the goods other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat credit" to "the duty payable on value addition undertaken in the manufacture of the said goods by the said unit." The court noted that this issue had already been addressed in the case of Sal Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, where the notifications were deemed invalid. However, the Supreme Court's interim order stayed the High Court's judgment, pending further proceedings.

2. Entitlement to Full Refund Based on Original Notification No. 39/2001-C.E.:
The petitioners sought full refunds based on the original Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., arguing that the amendments should not apply retrospectively. The court observed that the petitioners had filed refund claims under the amended notifications, which were partially granted by the authorities. The petitioners did not appeal against the partial rejections and only approached the court after a considerable delay. The court held that the petitioners could not now claim full refunds based on the invalidity of the notifications without having challenged the partial rejections through the proper appellate channels.

3. Applicability of Principles of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioners contended that the amendments breached the principles of promissory estoppel, as they had made significant investments based on the original notification. The court did not delve deeply into this issue, as it had already been addressed in the Sal Steel Ltd. case. The pending Supreme Court proceedings would ultimately determine the applicability of promissory estoppel in this context.

4. Right to Approach Court Directly Without Appealing Against Refund Rejections:
The court emphasized that the petitioners should have pursued the statutory appeal process against the partial rejections of their refund claims. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, the court reiterated that refund claims must be adjudicated under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically u/s 11B. The court concluded that the petitioners could not bypass the appeal process and directly seek relief through writ petitions based on judgments in other cases.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the petitioners could not maintain their claims for full refunds without having exhausted the statutory appeal process. The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioners' right to appeal against the refund rejections if such a right was available.