9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1986 (7) TMI 101 - HC - Central Excise
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the liability of excise duty on extruded aluminium tubes, the claim for refund of excess duty paid, the period for which refund can be claimed, and the authority of the department to retain wrongfully collected amounts. Liability of Excise Duty: The petitioners, a company manufacturing tubes, were subject to excise duty on extruded aluminium tubes under Sub-item 27(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The duty was initially based on tariff value and later on the value of the tubes, including additional costs like painting, printing, and fitting charges. Claim for Refund: Upon discovering a judgment stating that certain costs should not be included in the assessable value for duty calculation, the petitioners filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid from January 1, 1974, to June 17, 1980. The authorities directed them to file a formal refund claim, which was not processed, leading to the petition seeking refund under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Period for Refund: The department contended that refund could only be claimed for three years prior to the date of knowledge of the mistake of law. However, the court held that if duty was collected illegally, the refund could cover a longer period, citing precedents where refunds were granted beyond the three-year limit. Authority to Retain Amounts: The court emphasized that taxes should only be collected by authority of law, and if collected illegally, the department cannot refuse a refund based on the delay in claiming it. The court rejected the argument that completed assessments prevent refund, stating that illegal collections cannot be retained. Decision and Directions: The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the authorities to calculate and refund the excess duty paid from January 1, 1974, to June 17, 1980, within three months. No direction was given regarding the payment of interest, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
