9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be entitled to the benefit of the said direction. The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking refund of excise duty paid on blended yarn for a period 14.9.1966 to 15.3.1972 was not maintainable before the civil court and was clearly barred by limitation. As admittedly, the plaintiff had approached the Superintendent, Central Excise by way of application seeking refund and the Collector (Appeals) by way of appeal against the rejection of its application seeking refund and had failed - Following decision of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 80 of 1986 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2014 - Arun Bhansali, J. For the Appellant : V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntendent, Central Excise on 3.4.1976 for refund of the duties paid, however, without considering the plea raised by the Company and without giving any opportunity of hearing and without considering the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, the claim was rejected as time barred. An appeal was filed before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ajmer, which was also rejected on 31.1.1977 and therefore, on 12.1.1979, a notice under Section 80 CPC was issued and the suit was filed on 16.3.1979. A written statement was filed by the defendant inter-alia questioning the jurisdiction of the Court and taking a plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court framed six issues and after hearing the parties, it came to the conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.1.1976, when the said judgment came to the notice of the plaintiff in March, 1976, wherein the Gujarat High Court had ruled that the duty was not payable under tariff Items No.18 18A on blended yarn and as the suit was filed within three years from the date the said mistake came to the notice of the plaintiff, the suit was within limitation. Further on the issue of maintainability of claim for refund by way of filing suit before the civil court, the trial court came to the conclusion that there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 barring jurisdiction of the civil court and therefore, the suit was maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) while dealing with almost ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the law declared herein. Since the law is being declared and clarified by us now, we make the following directions : In cases where writ petitions, writ appeals (by whatever appellation they are called) or suits (at whatever stage they may be, as on today) are pending as on today, and provided they have not already taken proceedings for refund under the Act, it shall be open to the petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs to file applications for refund under Section 11-B within sixty days from today. If the applications are so filed by them, they shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation and shall be dealt with according to law. We make it clear that this direction applies only to petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs in pending writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
