1982 (9) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Price list - Proper officer failed to pass any order - Dereliction of duty - Refund of duty illegally recovered - Refund procedure not followed - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of excise duty levy on post-manufacturing costs.
2. Approval of revised price list by excise authorities.
3. Claim for refund of excise duty paid in excess.
4. Failure of excise authorities to act on the fresh price list filed by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioners, a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of paints and allied products, filed a petition under Art. 226 challenging the levy of excise duty on post-manufacturing costs. The petitioners had initially included sale-related expenses in the price list, leading to duty assessment based on this incorrect valuation. Upon realizing the mistake, they sought approval for a revised price list based on manufacturing costs and profits. The respondents contended that excise duty had been collected lawfully as per the Act, valuing goods at the normal wholesale price under section 4. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the legality of the current duty levy, emphasizing the prescribed procedure under Section 11-B for claiming refunds of excess duty, thus denying extraordinary relief under Article 226.

2. The respondents failed to act on the fresh price list submitted by the petitioners, as required by Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules. The rule mandates the proper officer to approve the price list to determine the correct value for assessment under section 4 of the Act. In this case, the officer did not make any modifications or approvals, indicating a failure to fulfill their duty. The court held that the respondents had not complied with their obligation under the rule, directing them to take action on the fresh list submitted by the petitioners in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioners also claimed a refund of excise duty paid in excess since 1977, citing the provisions of Section 11-B of the Act that allow for refund applications within a specified period. The respondents argued that the prescribed refund procedure had not been followed by the petitioners, making it impossible to consider their request. The court highlighted the statutory procedure for claiming refunds and found no compelling reason to grant additional relief through the writ jurisdiction of Article 226. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, directing the excise authorities to process the fresh price list while denying other requested reliefs, with each party bearing their own costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of excise duty valuation, approval of price lists, refund claims, and the duty of excise authorities to act on submissions in compliance with the law, providing a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and obligations of the parties involved.