1987 (7) TMI 91 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the payment of excise duty by the Respondents was made under a mistake of law.
2. Whether the Respondents were entitled to a refund of excise duty.
3. Application of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules regarding limitation on refund applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal stemmed from a writ petition filed by the Respondents challenging the orders rejecting their excise duty refund application. The Respondents, who manufactured and sold electrodes, realized they had included trade discounts in the assessable value of their products erroneously. The Supreme Court's judgment in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. highlighted this error. The Respondents filed a refund application for the excise duty paid between June 1971 and March 1973, amounting to Rs. 3,31,933.12. The Assistant Collector rejected the application citing Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, which the single Judge later ruled did not apply due to the mistake of law made by the Respondents.

2. The single Judge upheld the Respondents' contention that the excise duty payment was a result of a mistake of law, rendering it unauthorized. Referring to previous judgments, the Judge allowed the Appellants to determine the refund amount within three months based on the trade discounts given by the Respondents to their dealers during the relevant period. The Judge dismissed the Appellants' argument that the payment was not a mistake of law but an error or inadvertence, emphasizing that the trade discount should not have been included in the assessable value.

3. The Explanation to Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act clarified that trade discounts should not be considered in determining the assessable value for excise duty. Any payment made including trade discounts was deemed a mistake of law. It was established that the Appellants had no legal authority to collect excise duty based on an assessable value that included trade discounts. Previous cases supported the notion that when a payment is received without legal authority, Rule 11's limitation on refund applications does not apply. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Appellants were directed to refund the excise duty amount to the Respondents.