1990 (10) TMI 93 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of Rs. 12,67,273.37 as per Annexure F.
2. Rejection of part of the refund amount by the Assistant Collector.
3. Interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act.
4. Applicability of previous court judgments on similar grounds.
5. Compliance with the Division Bench decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 12,67,273.37 as per Annexure F, which was the amount due based on the Appellate Collector's order dated 30-1-1987.

2. The Assistant Collector initially rejected a part of the refund claim, stating that the refunded amount would be included in the assessable value, thereby reducing the refundable amount. This rejection led to the petitioner challenging the decision through a writ petition.

3. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, referencing the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, where it was established that only the effective duty chargeable under the Act should be excluded in determining the assessable value, not any hypothetical duty on notional assessable value.

4. The court highlighted the decision's relevance in the present case, emphasizing that the Department's contention for rejecting the refund was misconceived, as per the Division Bench's judgment. The court noted that there was no appeal filed against this judgment, and it had been consistently followed in subsequent cases.

5. Relying on the Division Bench decision in the Mangalore Chemicals case and subsequent judgments like Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition for the refund of Rs. 12,67,273.37. The court quashed the Assistant Collector's order rejecting part of the refund and directed the respondents to refund the amount within 8 weeks with 12% interest from 9-9-1988 until the payment date.

6. The court dismissed another writ petition related to Annexure H, which was not the subject of the refund claim in question, thereby concluding the judgment on the refund issue in favor of the petitioner based on the legal interpretations and precedents discussed.