9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Laches 2. Legality of appellate and revisional orders 3. Basis of the order dated 12-10-1971 4. Relief for incorrect rate of duty realization 5. Classification of 'Badami' paper under specific notifications Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Laches: The court assessed whether the petitioner was guilty of laches by filing the writ petitions after a considerable delay. In writ petition No. 825 of 1975, the revisional order was passed on 30-5-1974, and the petition was filed on 21-3-1975, over nine months later. Similarly, in writ petition No. 828 of 1975, the revisional order was passed on 20-5-1974, and the petition was filed on 21-3-1975, again after more than nine months. The court noted that no explanation for the delay was provided by the petitioner, deeming the petitions delayed and the petitioner guilty of laches. 2. Legality of Appellate and Revisional Orders: The petitioner contended that their representation was not an appeal under Section 35 of the Act and thus should not have been time-barred. However, the court found that the petitioner had treated the representation as an appeal, as evidenced by the use of the term 'appeal' in subsequent communications. The appellate authority correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred, and the revisional authority endorsed this view. Therefore, the appellate and revisional orders were legally correct. 3. Basis of the Order Dated 12-10-1971: In writ petition No. 828 of 1975, the original claim for refund was not filed within the three-month period prescribed by Rule 11. The last date of excise duty payment was 18-9-1968, and the claim was lodged on 15-10-1970, nearly two years later. The Assistant Collector's order dated 12-10-1971, rejecting the claim as time-barred, was in accordance with Rule 11 and legally sound. 4. Relief for Incorrect Rate of Duty Realization: The court considered whether relief should be granted if the duty was realized at an incorrect rate. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and its rules provided a hierarchy of authorities for relief. The petitioner did not follow the prescribed remedies properly. Even under ordinary law, a suit for recovery would be barred by limitation. Therefore, the court decided it would not be a fair exercise of discretion to grant relief under Article 226 when the relief under ordinary law had become time-barred. 5. Classification of 'Badami' Paper: The court examined whether 'Badami' paper should be classified as coloured paper under notifications Nos. 209/67 and 210/67 dated 8-9-1967 and notifications Nos. 22/68 and 23/68 dated 1-3-1968. The court found that 'Badami' paper, being unbleached and bearing its natural colour, did not fall under the 'coloured varieties' category. The notifications dated 1-3-1968 clarified that unbleached paper, despite its tint, was not considered coloured paper. Thus, the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty at the concessional rate, and the excess duty realized was incorrect. However, due to the findings on other issues, no relief was granted. Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed due to laches and the legal correctness of the appellate and revisional orders. The court also found that 'Badami' paper was not a coloured variety, but no relief was granted due to the petitioner's procedural defaults. The oral prayer for a certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution was refused. Final Judgment: The writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs, and any stay orders are discharged.
|
