1983 (10) TMI 65 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus sought to dispose of refund applications.
2. Assessment of excise duty under different tariff items.
3. Delay in processing refund applications.
4. Application for adjournment by the Department.
5. Justification for not processing refund applications.
6. Petitioner's undertaking for refund if order revised.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a public limited company manufacturing scooter and motor vehicle parts, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to direct the respondents to dispose of six refund applications. These applications were based on a change in the assessment of excise duty from Tariff Item 16A(i) to 34A, as per the order of the Central Board of Excise.

2. Prior to July 1975, the petitioner's products were assessed under Tariff Item 16A(i) for excise duty. After a series of appeals, the Central Board of Excise determined that the products should be assessed under Tariff Item 34A. The petitioner then filed refund applications for the relevant periods, but the Department delayed processing them without a valid reason.

3. The petitioner highlighted that despite the Central Board's order, the Department issued a show-cause notice to revise the decision. The petitioner challenged this notice in the Delhi High Court, where interim relief was granted. The petitioner insisted on the prompt disposal of refund applications and payment of the claimed amount.

4. The Department's counsel sought an adjournment, citing recent briefing and the petition's admission in 1983. The Court rejected the adjournment, emphasizing that the matter was expedited for hearing and the Department's delay in preparing a response was unjustified.

5. The Department justified the delay in processing refund applications by claiming that the Central Government was revising the Central Board's decision. However, the Court deemed this argument erroneous, stating that the petitioner was entitled to refunds based on the existing order. The petitioner offered an undertaking to refund if the Central Government revised the decision adversely.

6. Consequently, the Court granted the writ of mandamus, directing the Department to process the refund applications and pay the amount within eight weeks. The petitioner's undertaking to refund in case of adverse revision was accepted. The Department was also ordered to pay the costs of the petition.