2010 (12) TMI 32 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty - paying duty by mistake under tariff item 26AA(ia) and the mistake was discovered after the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise and others Vs. M/s Calcutta Steel Industries and others 1988 -TMI - 42375 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Held that - The amount of duty paid under mistake is liable to be refunded - said prayer was declined on the ground that the matter was pending before Hon ble the Supreme Court Held that - in view of judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others 1996 -TMI - 44411 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. In any case since the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal the writ petition may not be considered on merits. In view of the above petitioners having not taken alternative remedy of filing the appeal these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the alternative remedy of appeal in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses multiple Civil Writ Petitions seeking a refund of excise duty paid under the Central Excise Act, 1944. In one of the petitions, the petitioner claimed to have paid duty by mistake under a specific tariff item, which was discovered after a judgment by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought a refund of over Rs. 4 lacs but was denied on the grounds that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The other petitions presented similar claims for duty refunds. The respondents argued that based on a Supreme Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the petitioner's claim was not maintainable. Additionally, since the petitioners had not pursued the statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the alternative remedy of appeal as per the law.

This judgment primarily deals with the issue of refund of excise duty paid under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners claimed to have paid duty by mistake under a specific tariff item and sought a refund after the discovery of the error following a Supreme Court judgment. However, the respondents contended that the petitioners' claims were not maintainable based on a previous Supreme Court decision. The court noted that the petitioners had not pursued the statutory remedy of appeal, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions without prejudice to the option of appeal in accordance with the law.

In the case at hand, the petitioners sought a refund of excise duty paid under the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to a mistake made in paying duty under a particular tariff item. The petitioners claimed that the error was realized after a Supreme Court judgment, prompting them to request a refund. However, the respondents argued against the maintainability of the petitioners' claims, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling. The court emphasized that since the petitioners had not availed themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petitions were dismissed, allowing the petitioners the option to pursue an appeal as per legal provisions.