2017 (1) TMI 1821 - HC - Central Excise

Calling for entire record of the case - Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this contention has been raised at final stage which is not permissible - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA THROUGH COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE DELHI-II VERSUS M/S. IND METAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ANR. 2013 (1) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT , it is opined that the view taken by Delhi High Court is required to be accepted and the same is accepted. The writ petition is dismissed only on preliminary ground.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to revisional authority's order on excise duty deposit and refund eligibility.

Analysis:
The High Court heard a petition where the revenue challenged a revisional authority's order regarding the deposit of excise duty and the eligibility for a refund. The revenue sought to quash the order dated May 10, 2007, and argued that the amount deposited by the respondent was not actually leviable by law, therefore, should be considered a deposit with the Government, not as duty. The respondents raised a preliminary objection citing a decision of the Delhi High Court, emphasizing that the Central Government's orders under section 35EE cannot be challenged by its own functionaries. The Court agreed with the Delhi High Court's view, stating that the writ petition challenging the revenue's own order was impermissible. The revenue's counsel argued against this contention, but the Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition solely on this ground, discharging the rule.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of whether the revenue could challenge its own order regarding the deposit of excise duty and the eligibility for a refund. The Court relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court to conclude that such challenges by the revenue were impermissible. The Court emphasized that the Central Government's orders under section 35EE could not be questioned by its own functionaries, highlighting the finality attached to such orders. The revenue's counsel's argument to contest the matter on merit was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed based on this preliminary ground.

In summary, the High Court's judgment upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, ruling that the revenue could not challenge its own order regarding excise duty deposit and refund eligibility. The Court emphasized the finality of the Central Government's orders under section 35EE and dismissed the writ petition solely on the preliminary ground of impermissibility of the revenue challenging its own order.