1989 (12) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product for excise duty, entitlement to refund with interest, date and rate of interest for refund.

Classification of product for excise duty:
The petitioner, a partnership firm re-rolling stainless steel product 'Patta', disputed its classification by the respondent as sheet or strips instead of Patta/Patti. Despite multiple appeals and orders, the correct classification was established by the Collector (Appeals) and Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized classifying based on the manufacturing mill due to the absence of a 'strip' definition under the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of excise duty paid under protest.

Entitlement to refund with interest:
The Tribunal's decision confirmed the petitioner's entitlement to a refund. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the revenue's mistake in charging excise duty under the wrong classification, despite the petitioner's protests, necessitated the refund. The court held that the revenue was obligated to refund the amount collected erroneously.

Date and rate of interest for refund:
Considering the petitioner's continuous protest against the incorrect classification, the court determined that interest should be paid from the date of duty payment at a rate of 12% per annum. Legal references supported this decision, emphasizing the entitlement to interest from the date of actual duty collection. The court directed the respondents to refund the excise duty amount with interest within four months from the judgment date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, the progression of the case, the reasoning behind the court's decision, and the directives issued for the refund process.