9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Claim for refund of excise duty, limitation period for filing refund claim, maintainability of writ petition without availing alternative remedy of appeal.
Summary: The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Flexible Polyurethane Foam, sought refund of excise duty paid from 1st April, 1990 to 31st March, 1993, contending it was not liable for the duty. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector citing limitation and unjust enrichment. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition without appealing. Respondents argued that the writ was not maintainable due to the availability of an appeal remedy and that the limitation issue was a factual matter beyond the writ's scope. During arguments, the respondent referred to Supreme Court cases emphasizing that refund claims for excess excise duty must be made to the authorities specified under the Act within the prescribed period. The Court held that a writ petition cannot be used to claim such refunds, as the power under Article 226 must align with the Act's provisions. The Court noted that even if duty was collected erroneously, the proper procedure for refund must be followed within the specified time limit. Considering the Supreme Court's stance that refund claims must be made within six months to the customs authorities, the Court deemed the writ seeking refund of allegedly excess duty as not maintainable. Additionally, as the duty had already been collected from the purchaser, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund even if the levy was deemed illegal. The Court emphasized that its power should not be used to unjustly enrich an individual. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
|
