9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K.A. Puj, J. (Oral)]. - Since the common issue is involved in both these petitions and they are heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Special Civil Application No. 5509 of 1987 is filed by the Company at the relevant time praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-9-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Division-III, Surat whereby the refund claim of the petitioner Company for Rs. 65,39,719.95 ps was rejected on the ground that the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay on 31-3-1986 in the case of M/s. Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd., is a specific order in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered to be returned to the respondent on 16-4-1993. The Court has, thereafter, not directed the respondent to redeposit the said amount with the Court even after restoration of the petitions. It is also worthwhile to note here that subsequent to the restoration of the petition, the Petitioner Company was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 14-10-1998 in Company Petition No. 149 of 1996. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. However, no steps were taken by the office of the Official Liquidator to file an appearance on behalf of the Official Liquidator. Mr. Y.V. Contractor, learned advocate originally appearing for the Company as well as its Director has appeared a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or different amount as mentioned herein below, preferred relevant claims : Sr.No. Refund Claim Date Period Amount 1 ADM/C.5/87/1746 10-8-1987 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1981 Rs. 69,71,903.92 2 ADM/C.5/87/1742 10-8-1987 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1982 Rs. 86,68,136.74 3 ADM/C.5/87/1743 10-8-1987 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 Rs. 96,87,863.01 4 ADM/C.5/87/1744 10-8-1987 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 Rs. 84,16,543.89 5 ADM/C.5/87/1745 10-8-1987 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985 Rs. 1,21,46,474.91 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bligation to entertain the refund application and grant the refund of the excise duty collected without authority of law and under the grab of tax, though not payable and such collection of amount is not permissible under Article-265 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that as per settled position in law the petitioner's claim for refund of the excise duty paid should not have been rejected by resorting to the technical ground of limitation. 9. These two petitions were strongly opposed by the Excise Department and it was strongly urged that the refund claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs. It was contended on behalf of the Excise Department that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er preferred refund applications before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat. All the refund applications were filed beyond the period of limitation as provided by Section-11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the said refund applications were rejected. It is further contended that the .petitioner was estopped from filing any such refund applications. Such applications were grossly barred by limitation and also suffered from delay, latches and acquiescences. The petitioner had not suffered any loss and hence there is no question to compensate the petitioner. It was further contended that the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay in the case of M/s. Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd., is not a final o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence the same remained valid during the material time and the petitioner has paid the correct duty as per approved classification list. It is, therefore, not now open for the petitioner to contend that the products in question were not classifiable under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 15A(2) but was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68. It is, therefore, contended that both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having gone through the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector in light of the statutory provisions and decided case law on the subject, we are of the view that the orders impugned do not call for any interference by this Court. Even on earlier occasion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
