1993 (6) TMI 63 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty recovered without authority of law.
2. Introduction of Section 11B in Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Maintainability of application for variation.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment regarding jurisdiction of High Court.
5. Consideration of subsequent events and statutory changes in court orders.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a petition seeking a refund of duty recovered without legal authority. The Division Bench granted the relief, directing the Assistant Collector to refund the amount within four weeks with interest. However, the respondents failed to comply with the order.

2. Subsequently, Section 11B was introduced in the Central Excises and Salt Act, specifying the procedure for refund claims. The respondents sought a variation of the order based on this new provision. The petitioner argued that the application for variation was not maintainable as per a Supreme Court judgment (AIR 1987 SC 943).

3. The petitioner contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for variation once the proceedings were terminated by the final disposal of the writ petition. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that no miscellaneous application could be filed to revive proceedings after a certain period.

4. The respondents argued that the Supreme Court's observations should be interpreted in the context of the specific case and that courts can consider subsequent events and statutory changes. However, the court held that it was bound by the Supreme Court's dictum and could not deviate from it under Article 141 of the Constitution.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, stating that while there was merit in the respondent's argument, they were bound by the Supreme Court's ruling and could not accept a different interpretation. The case highlights the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents even in the face of statutory changes.