1995 (12) TMI 76 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty amount with interest.
2. Interpretation of Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Applicability of previous court judgments on the case.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against a single Judge's order directing the refund of a specific amount to the respondent with interest. The dispute arose when the Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected the respondent's claim for a concessional rate of excise duty. Subsequent appeals and orders by different authorities led to conflicting decisions on the refund issue. The main question before the court was whether the direction to refund the difference between the concessional rate and the excise duty was valid.

The court analyzed the situation and highlighted the importance of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act in cases involving refunds. It was emphasized that the refund cannot be ordered straightaway without considering the provisions of Section 11B. The court also considered the argument that the application of Section 11B might not be necessary, which needed to be examined further during the appeal process. The judgment referenced a previous Division Bench decision to support the view that the right to seek a refund depends on the outcome of the appeal before the CEGAT.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single Judge's order for refund. The CEGAT was directed to decide the appeal within two months, and if a refund application became necessary, it should be considered in accordance with Section 11B(2) of the Act. The court also outlined the timeline for decision-making and the entitlement to interest on any refundable amount. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of following due process and legal provisions in matters of excise duty refunds.