9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim for refund of excise duty paid without authority of law. 2. Application rejected on the ground of being time-barred. 3. Doctrine of unjust enrichment and claim for refund. 4. Interpretation of exemption notification and duty liability. Analysis: 1. The petitioners manufactured goods subject to excise duty but were unaware of an exemption notification. Upon discovering the exemption, they filed for a refund of the duty paid without authority of law. The Assistant Collector partially granted the refund, citing non-refundable amounts due to the petitioners' failure to claim exemption earlier. The petitioners appealed, and a subsequent refund application was rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The petitioners contended that the duty collection was unauthorized, relying on precedents where refunds were allowed in similar circumstances. 2. The court considered the petitioners' entitlement to the exemption notification and the duty refund. The respondent argued that the petitioners did not claim the exemption until a later date, potentially passing on the duty to consumers. The court noted the petitioners' discovery of the mistake in April 1980 and the filing of the petition within three years, thus meeting the statutory requirement. The court referenced previous judgments, including Laukoplast (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, to support the petitioners' claim for a refund due to the unauthorized duty collection. 3. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was raised concerning the duty refund. The court acknowledged the Gujarat High Court's decision in Union of India v. New India Industries Ltd., highlighting the requirement for payments made under a mistake of law or coercion to claim relief. However, the court emphasized the legal position that the theory of unjust enrichment does not apply to claims for refund of excise duty collected without authority of law. Various judgments were cited to support this legal stance, underscoring the court's obligation to allow the petition for refund based on established legal principles. 4. The court expressed concerns about the recurring issue of unauthorized duty collection and subsequent refund claims, hinting at a potential collaboration between manufacturers and revenue authorities. The court urged the government to consider amending the law to prevent such controversies and proposed a mechanism to deny refund claims if the duty had been passed on to consumers. Despite these observations, the court ultimately allowed the petition for refund, ordering the refund amount with interest and emphasizing the need for prompt payment without costs.
|
