9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (11) TMI 87 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Refund of Central Excise duty paid in excess for poster paper manufactured by the petitioner. 2. Claiming refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 3. Limitation period for claiming refund. 4. Tenability of the claim for refund. 5. Possibility of unjust enrichment. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 36,93,564/- paid in excess for the period 9-11-1982 to 7-11-1985 concerning poster paper manufacturing. The refund claim was based on mistaken payment under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 2. The application for refund was submitted on 18-6-1986, but the refund was rejected through an adjudication order. The petitioner, without appealing to the Tribunal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a refund not only for the specified period but also for an anterior period. The court clarified that refund claims under the Central Excise Act must adhere to the Act's provisions and not general laws governing refunds under mistake of law. 3. The tenability of the claim for refund under Section 11-B for the period 9-5-1985 to 7-11-1985 was questioned due to the application being beyond the prescribed six-month limitation period. The court emphasized that a mere expression of intention to submit a refund claim, as in the letter dated 8-11-1985, does not constitute a valid claim under Section 11-B. The petitioner's argument that duty would be paid under protest was deemed irrelevant for the period in question. 4. Additionally, the court noted the absence of evidence indicating that the disputed duty was not passed on to buyers, presuming that the petitioner likely collected the duty. This raised concerns about unjust enrichment, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the lack of specific averments to support the petitioner's claim and the potential for unjust enrichment if the refund were granted. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
