9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Seeking quashing of orders rejecting refund application for excess excise duty paid on super-phosphate. Analysis: The petitioner imported Rock Phosphate, a base fertilizer, on which countervailing duty was paid. The petitioner claimed a refund of excess excise duty paid on Super-phosphate manufactured from Rock Phosphate under notification No. 24/69. The claim was initially rejected by Excise Authorities citing non-admissibility of cash refund under the notification. The appellate and revisional authorities upheld the rejection, stating that countervailing duty is not refundable, and refund should be based on excess payment on the final product. However, the High Court found the Excise Authorities misdirected in law, as the petitioner's claim was based on the exemption under the notification for Super-phosphate. The court noted clear averments and evidence of Rock Phosphate import, manufacture, and clearances supporting the refund claim. The Excise Authorities also cited Rule 56A for affording credit of duty, but the High Court highlighted that the petitioner's goods were received before the rule's applicability, rendering the rejection on this ground legally flawed. The Revisional Authority acknowledged the basis of the claim but questioned the lack of data on clearances involving imported Rock Phosphate. The High Court, however, found the material presented prima facie establishing the countervailing duty paid on the base fertilizer and the excess excise duty on Super-phosphate, supporting the refund claim. Moreover, the Excise Authorities did not raise the bar of limitation or equity arguments against the petitioner, which the High Court declined to consider on merits. The court dismissed the reliance on certain cases and concluded that the impugned orders were contrary to law, leading to the quashing of the orders. The High Court directed the Excise Authorities to reconsider the refund application based on the judgment's observations and in accordance with the law, allowing the petitioner to provide additional data if required. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
