9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of order rejecting refund claims as time-barred under Central Excise Act. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the legality of an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejecting five refund claims as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The petitioners claimed they paid excess duty under a mistake of law between March 17, 1972, and October 11, 1976, despite being eligible for an exemption under Notification No. 30/72. The Court interpreted the exemption notification and held that aerated waters manufactured using synthetic essences were entitled to the exemption. The Company later filed classification lists to claim the exemption for different brands of aerated waters. The refund claims were initially rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Collector, citing Rules 11 and 173J of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners argued that the Assistant Collector's order was erroneous and that they were entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid under a mistake of law. The Court acknowledged that the Department cannot retain excess duty collected without legal authority and that the limitation period under Section 11B does not apply when granting relief in writ jurisdiction. Relying on previous decisions, the Court held that the relief sought by the petitioners should be granted. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Assistant Collector's order, and directed the respondents to grant the refund claimed in the five applications within four weeks. If the amount was not paid within the specified period, the Department was required to refund the amount with 15% interest per annum until the date of refund. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
