Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 1976 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1976 (3) TMI 52 - HC - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty paid on non-dutiable items.
2. Implementation of the order for refund.
3. Application of Rule 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules.
4. Contention regarding duty levied on properzi rods.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company, paid excise duty on properzi rods, claiming them to be non-dutiable items under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The amendment in 1969 added wire bars, wire rods, and castings under a new clause, exempting them from duty. The company sought a refund of wrongly paid duty from 1966 until the amendment. The application for refund was initially rejected but later allowed by the Government of India. The company contended that the order for refund was not implemented despite clarifications provided.

2. The court held that the order for refund, as per Ext. P. 5, was clear and directed the refund of excise duty paid. The respondents contended that the duty collected was on crude aluminum, not properzi rods. However, the court emphasized that the order specified the duty on properzi rods, and the respondents were bound by it. Any objections should have been raised earlier, and it was too late to challenge the order at the implementation stage.

3. The respondents argued that the claim for refund from 1966 was time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, which required claims to be lodged within three months of payment. Despite this, the court maintained that the order for refund, Ext. P. 5, overrode any limitation arguments at the implementation stage. The respondents were obligated to comply with the refund directive.

4. Lastly, the petitioner's argument that duty was not levied on properzi rods but on crude aluminum was dismissed by the court. The court emphasized that the order for refund was based on the duty paid on properzi rods, as specified in the application and revision petition. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to refund the specified amount to the petitioner, allowing for adjustment against any outstanding payments due from the company.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates