9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund of excess duty paid by a company manufacturing Wysolone Tablets. 2. Application for refund rejected by Assistant Collector based on pending appeal by Revenue against a similar case. 3. Appeal to Collector of Central Excise partly allowed for a limited period based on Central Excise Rules. 4. Challenge to the Collector's order in a writ petition. 5. Legal principles regarding refund of taxes paid under a mistaken belief. 6. Argument of unjust enrichment by Revenue if refund granted. 7. Requirement for Revenue to prove burden shifted to consumers for denying refund. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioners, a company manufacturing Wysolone Tablets, sought a refund of excess duty paid during a specific period due to loading of prices by Excise Authorities. The assessable value was determined based on the loaded retail price, leading to higher duty payments. 2. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund application citing a pending appeal by Revenue against a similar case where a refund was granted. The rejection was solely based on the pending appeal and not on the merits of the petitioners' claim. 3. The Collector of Central Excise, on appeal, acknowledged the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal in the similar case and allowed a partial refund for a limited period as per Central Excise Rules, rejecting the rest of the claim based on limitation grounds. 4. The petitioners challenged the Collector's order through a writ petition, emphasizing previous judgments where refunds were granted for payments made under a mistaken belief, irrespective of limitations. 5. The Court referred to legal principles stating that refunds should be granted if taxes or duties were paid under a mistaken belief, irrespective of limitations, citing relevant judgments to support the petitioners' claim for a refund. 6. The Revenue argued against granting the refund, alleging unjust enrichment of the petitioners if the refund was allowed. The Revenue contended that the burden of duty had been passed on to consumers, justifying the denial of the refund. 7. The Court emphasized the Revenue's burden to prove that the duty burden was indeed shifted to consumers to justify denying the refund. The Court found the Revenue's evidence insufficient to establish the burden shift, leading to a ruling in favor of the petitioners. In conclusion, the Court held in favor of the petitioners, directing the Revenue to verify the refund claim and grant the refund within a specified period. Failure to comply would result in the Revenue paying interest on the refund amount. The Court made the rule absolute without any order as to costs.
|
