1982 (3) TMI 71 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation - Duty paid under mistake of law - Time limit for refund - Alternative remedy availed of - Appeal to Supreme Court

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability for excise duty on post-manufacturing expenses
2. Enrichment of petitioners unjustly
3. Barred claim by limitation
4. Availment of remedy by revision to the Central Government
5. Determination of post-manufacturing expenses
6. Oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
7. Oral application for suspension of the operation of the order

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this batch of Writ Petitions is whether the petitioners are liable for excise duty on post-manufacturing expenses. The Court referred to previous decisions and concluded that the petitioners are not liable for this duty based on established precedents.

2. The respondents argued that the petitioners should not be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves. However, the Court rejected this argument based on a previous decision and directed similar actions as in a prior writ petition.

3. Another contention raised by the respondents was that the claim is barred by limitation. The Court held that since the claim was made within three years of the decision that no excise duty can be levied on post-manufacturing expenses, it is not barred by limitation.

4. The respondents also raised a point regarding the petitioners availing themselves of a remedy by way of revision to the Central Government. The Court held that since the levy of excise duty was against the law and the claim was justified, the existence of another remedy did not bar the petitioners from approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. It was noted that the exact quantum of post-manufacturing expenses had not been determined due to lack of evidence produced by the petitioners. The Court directed the Assessing Authority to determine these expenses after allowing the petitioners to provide necessary evidence.

6. An oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was made on behalf of the respondents, which was granted by the Court due to substantial questions of law of general importance.

7. An oral application for suspension of the operation of the order was made by the respondents. The Court directed that the petitioners should be paid the amount due after determination, upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Assistant Collector was instructed to expedite the claim process, rendering further stay orders unnecessary.