9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund of additional duty of customs on non-potable industrial alcohol. 2. Application of limitation under Customs Act for refund. 3. Interpretation of exemption notification for excise duty refund. 4. Bar on refund applications filed beyond the prescribed period. 5. Legal authority for levy and payment of excise duty. 6. Rejection of refund application under Section 11B of the Act. 7. Legal implications of delay in filing refund applications. 8. Judicial precedents on grant of refund under mistake of law. 9. Scope of High Court's power under Article 226/227. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of refund of additional duty of customs paid on non-potable industrial alcohol used as raw material by a petrochemical company. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 57,80,183/- along with interest, contending that the duty was paid under a mistake of law following a judgment that exempted such alcohol from additional duty. However, the court rejected this argument, citing the limitation prescribed by the Customs Act and judicial precedents that bar refunds beyond the statutory period. The court referred to a Division Bench decision in Pfizer Ltd. & Ors., which clarified that refund applications filed beyond the prescribed period could not be granted, especially after a specific amending Act. It emphasized the need for strict compliance with exemption notifications and conditions, stating that liberal construction was not permissible. The court highlighted the manufacturer's responsibility to establish eligibility for exemptions and comply with notification requirements. Furthermore, the judgment discussed the legal authority for levy and payment of excise duty, emphasizing that the issuance of an exemption notification did not render an item non-excisable but enabled the manufacturer to claim exemption upon meeting specified conditions. The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Paros Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, which affirmed the rejection of refund applications filed beyond the statutory period. Additionally, the court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company, underscoring that the High Court could not direct authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions. It clarified that the power conferred by Article 226/227 aimed to enforce the rule of law and ensure compliance with legal provisions, rather than directing actions in opposition to the law. In conclusion, the court rejected the petitioner's claim for a refund, discharged the rule, and made no order as to costs, based on the legal principles governing refund applications, limitation periods, and compliance with exemption notifications under the Customs Act and related judicial precedents.
|
