1991 (4) TMI 143 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty illegally collected by a private limited company.
2. Non-compliance with the High Court's order directing refund.
3. Contempt of court proceedings initiated against the respondent for failure to refund the amount.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing plywood and wood articles, sought a refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,36,329.74 and Rs. 56,000/- for the period from February 6, 1987, to March 17, 1990. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal had classified the goods under a specific tariff sub-heading, entitling the company to the refund. Despite an order from the High Court directing the respondent to implement the Tribunal's decision and refund the amount due, only a partial refund of Rs. 56,000/- was processed, leading the company to file a writ petition for the remaining amount.

2. The Division Bench of the High Court issued a final order directing the respondent to implement the Tribunal's decision within two months, subject to no stay order from the Supreme Court. The court further ordered immediate release of any amount found due upon implementation. However, the respondent failed to refund the remaining amount within the stipulated time and instead issued a show cause notice to the company, questioning the refund application on the grounds of unjust enrichment.

3. The respondent's issuance of the show cause notice, contrary to the High Court's order, prompted the company to file a contempt petition. The respondent justified the notice based on government instructions regarding unjust enrichment, which the court deemed unacceptable. The court clarified that executive instructions cannot override judicial interpretations of statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the issue at hand was the respondent's violation of the court order to refund the amount due to the company, irrespective of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The court admitted the contempt petition and directed the respondent to appear in person for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of complying with court orders, especially regarding the refund of duties illegally collected, and emphasizes that executive instructions cannot supersede judicial interpretations of the law.