2003 (10) TMI 54 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of excise duty claim.
2. Validity of the revision petition filed by the Department.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Central Excise Rules.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the first respondent.
5. Contempt of Court by the first respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund of Excise Duty Claim:
The petitioner, a public limited company, sought a refund of Rs. 6,84,590/- as a rebate of duty for 2000 kilograms of Cresol Chloride, which had already suffered excise duty and was subsequently exported. The initial claim was rejected on the grounds that the goods were not in their original condition as required under Notification Number 197/62. However, the appellate authority accepted the petitioner's claim and granted the rebate on 16-5-1994.

2. Validity of the Revision Petition Filed by the Department:
The Department filed a revision petition before the first respondent after the appellate authority's favorable order for the petitioner. The revision petition was delayed by 51 days and was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The first respondent initially allowed the revision petition without addressing the delay, which was later contested by the petitioner in a writ petition. The High Court directed the first respondent to reconsider the revision petition's maintainability and merits, considering the delay and the requirement for it to be based on a question of law.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Central Excise Rules:
The petitioner followed the necessary procedural requirements under Rule 57F(1)(ii) and Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules for the return and re-export of the goods. The competent authority granted permission under Rule 173H, and the petitioner filed for a rebate under Rule 12. The Department's initial rejection of the rebate claim was based on the condition of the goods, which was later overturned by the appellate authority.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the First Respondent:
The first respondent, while reconsidering the revision petition, ignored the High Court's directive to focus on the question of law and not on factual matters. The first respondent's decision to condone the delay and entertain the revision petition was based on the argument that the initial filing of the appeal to CEGAT within the time frame should cover the delay period. However, this approach was contested as it did not align with the High Court's instructions.

5. Contempt of Court by the First Respondent:
The first respondent's comments on the High Court's order were deemed inappropriate and amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent's actions were seen as undermining the authority of the Court and interfering with the administration of justice. Consequently, the High Court decided to issue a contempt notice against the first respondent for his conduct.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to comply with the appellate authority's order dated 16-5-1994. The Court also took cognizance of the first respondent's conduct, deciding to issue a contempt notice for his comments on the Court's order. The respondents were instructed to refund the sum of Rs. 6,84,590/- within one month from the date of the order.

← Previous Next →