1998 (5) TMI 27 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of Excise Duty.
2. Applicability of limitation period.
3. Payment of duty under protest.
4. Mistake of law in claiming refund.
5. Legal position on refund claims based on another party's case.

Analysis:

1. Claim for refund of Excise Duty:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of an amount collected as Excise Duty, along with the quashing of the Assistant Collector's order rejecting the refund claim. The petitioner's application for refund covered the period from October 1975 to June 1983. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing it as barred by time under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

2. Applicability of limitation period:
Section 11B of the Act provides for a refund of excise duty with a fixed period of six months from the relevant date. The proviso to the section exempts the limitation of six months if the duty was paid under protest. The petitioner's application for refund did not mention payment under protest, leading to the rejection of the claim by the Assistant Collector as time-barred.

3. Payment of duty under protest:
The petitioner later claimed in the Writ Application that the duty was paid under protest. However, the Assistant Collector rejected this claim due to the absence of such pleadings before the departmental authorities. The documents provided by the petitioner did not sufficiently support the claim of payment under protest, leading to the rejection of this argument.

4. Mistake of law in claiming refund:
The petitioner argued that the refund claim could be made within three years of discovering a mistake of law, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the claimant must fight their own battle and cannot base a refund claim on another party's case or decision.

5. Legal position on refund claims based on another party's case:
The judgment referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that a claim for refund cannot be made based on another party's case or court decision. The Court reiterated that all refund claims must adhere to Rule 11/Section 11B and cannot be initiated based on external legal rulings. The application was ultimately dismissed by the Court based on these principles.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner's application for refund of Excise Duty, emphasizing that refund claims must be based on individual circumstances and cannot rely on external legal precedents or other party's cases.