2004 (9) TMI 134 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in refund of duty by the respondents.
2. Allegation of unjust enrichment by the respondents.
3. Failure to provide a written order by the respondent No. 2.
4. Lack of clarity regarding the representative's identity in the petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a chemical company, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a refund of Rs. 18,52,175.25 with interest from the respondents, Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The appeal was allowed by the Collector on 7-9-1989, and the petitioner subsequently approached the Assistant Collector, Vapi, for the refund. However, despite repeated attempts and delays, no decision was made by the respondent No. 2, leading the petitioner to file the petition after almost two years of waiting.

2. The petitioner argued that since the Collector had ruled in their favor, the Assistant Collector was obligated to grant the refund. The petitioner contended that the issue of unjust enrichment did not apply as the duty was paid under protest. The petitioner's representative appeared before the respondent No. 2, requesting a refund, but was informed that it would result in unjust enrichment. The petitioner highlighted the lack of response and the rejection of the unjust enrichment argument by the Bombay High Court in a previous case.

3. The High Court noted that despite reminders and representations, the respondent No. 2 failed to provide a written order on the refund application. The court cited a Supreme Court case stating that repeated representations do not constitute a cause of action. The lack of a formal decision from the respondent No. 2 within a reasonable time frame prompted the petitioner to approach the court for relief.

4. The court observed a discrepancy in the petition regarding the identity of the petitioner's representative who appeared before the Assistant Collector. The petitioner's counsel requested time to clarify this point through an affidavit, but the request was denied due to the significant delay in the case. The court emphasized the importance of timely and accurate submissions in legal proceedings and dismissed the petition on this ground.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition due to the delay in approaching the court, lack of a written order from the respondent No. 2, and the ambiguity regarding the representative's identity. The court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of timely and accurate legal filings in such matters.