9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Refund of excess central excise duty paid by the petitioners during 1981-82; Consideration of exemption notification No. 105/80-CE and subsequent amendments. Analysis: The High Court at Calcutta issued a Rule based on a writ petition by a company and its director seeking various reliefs, including a declaration that Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is ultra vires. The petitioners claimed exemption under Notification No. 105/80-CE but inadvertently did not claim it initially. They sought a refund of the excess duty paid and challenged the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The court noted the contestation by the respondents and the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioners argued that despite their inadvertent mistake, they should be entitled to the exemption and subsequent refund. They relied on precedents to support their claim for a review assessment and refund. The respondents, represented by their counsel, contended that the excise authority is not obligated to grant refunds for mistakes made by the petitioners in claiming exemptions. They emphasized the provisions of Section 11B of the Act regarding refund applications and limitations. The court considered various judgments cited by both sides, highlighting the importance of fair treatment and refunding erroneously levied amounts. It noted that the petitioners were indeed entitled to the exemption but had faced procedural hurdles in claiming it. The court found deficiencies in the orders of the excise authorities and the appellate forum, directing a reconsideration of the petitioners' representation and refund eligibility. The court set aside the impugned orders and instructed the authorities to reassess the matter, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioners and a reasoned decision in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court made the Rule absolute, setting aside the previous orders and directing the authorities to reconsider the petitioners' representation for refund without the limitation standing in the way. The court emphasized that the petitioners should not benefit twice from the exemption and refund, and no costs were awarded in this matter.
|
