2005 (2) TMI 157 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to determination of Annual Production Capacity (APC) by the Central Excise Commissioner based on the inclusion of galleries, Claim for refund of excess duty paid, Barred by limitation and delay, Violation of principles of natural justice, Entitlement to discretionary relief, Precedent of similar admitted petitions.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the determination of APC by the Central Excise Commissioner, which included galleries in the calculation. The petitioner argued that this inclusion was contrary to a Supreme Court judgment and sought a refund of excess duty paid. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing limitation and failure to challenge the determination earlier. The Commissioner (Appeals) also denied the claim, stating it was not open to claim refund based on another assessee's decision and that it was time-barred. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal had previously decided similarly, making an appeal futile, relying on legal precedents to support their case.

The petitioner further argued that the determination of APC was in violation of natural justice and sought an opportunity for a hearing. They claimed that similar petitions had been filed and admitted by the Court, indicating a precedent for their case. However, the Court noted a significant delay in filing the petition, questioning the petitioner's reasons for the delay despite being aware of their rights after the Supreme Court's decision. The Court emphasized the importance of timely action in seeking relief and highlighted the lack of justification for the delay in this case.

Moreover, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had submitted a declaration in 1998, which did not include gallery dimensions, indicating their understanding that galleries were not to be considered in determining APC. The petitioner could have challenged the determination through the Tribunal but failed to do so promptly. The Court stressed the need for parties to act within the prescribed period of limitation or a reasonable time to seek relief, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate in this instance.

Regarding the argument of the determination order being void due to a violation of natural justice, the Court highlighted that such a claim would require consideration if brought within the limitation period. The Court clarified that the cited legal precedent on void orders was in a different context and did not directly apply to the petitioner's case. Ultimately, the Court summarily rejected the petition and related petitions for being time-barred by delay and laches, finding no justifiable cause for the belated filing and the invocation of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.