9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of respondent to issue notice for re-depositing refunded amount; Availability of alternative remedy through appeal. Analysis: The petition involved a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of metal containers under Central Excise. The firm cleared goods between specific dates claiming exemption under Notification No. 97/70. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice to recover a sum from the firm, which was later withdrawn upon finding the exemption applicable. The firm then sought a refund for duty paid during a different period, which was granted. However, the respondent later issued a notice to re-deposit the refunded amount, alleging an error in the refund. The firm contested, stating the refund was rightfully granted post the earlier decision in its favor. The respondent argued that the refund was erroneous due to a delay in the refund application, justifying the notice for re-deposit. Additionally, the respondent contended that the firm had an alternative appeal remedy available, making the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution not maintainable. Upon hearing both parties, the court concluded in favor of the petitioner. It was established that the firm was not liable to pay excise duty for a specific period, and the refunded amount was rightfully due to the firm. The court noted that all relevant facts were known to the respondent when granting the refund. Therefore, the court deemed the refund as valid and found the respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice for re-deposit. The court dismissed the argument regarding the availability of an alternative appeal remedy, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the re-deposit notice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the notice for re-deposit and subsequent proceedings. The order directing re-deposit was also annulled. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the security deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner.
|
