9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for being used by the petitioner in the manufacture of Thinners. The said licence expired on December 31, 1968. It was a renewable licence and the petitioner applied for its renewal on November 9, 1968. Certificate No. C.T. 2, which was issued to the petitioner under Rule 156 by the Excise authorities, was withdrawn from the petitioner by the Excise authorities on January 10, 1969. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had to purchase certain quantities of those goods from Indian Iron and Steel Ltd. and Hindustan Steel Ltd. and had to pay them Excise duty along with the price of those goods because the petitioner's said licence was not then renewed and its said certificate was withdrawn by the Excise authorities. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner; and if it is held that the duty cannot be refunded to the petitioner, an order should be made directing the Excise authorities to refund the duty to those two companies by following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in an appeal from a decree in the case of Tiloke Chand Chppra v. Ramdhandas Beharilal, reported in (1962) 66 Cal WN 441. 5. The submissions of Mr. A.K. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, are as follows : Since the duty was not realised from the petitioner, it cannot be refunded to the petitioner under the Act, if any application for refund of duty is now made by those two companies, it will be time-barred and accordingly the Excise authorities should not be directed to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ories. They have also paid actual duty liable on those goods to the Excise authorities. 8. Further, the petitioner has not paid any duty to the Excise authorities, and therefore, the subsequent renewal of the said licence cannot confer any right on the petitioner to claim refund of the duty from the Excise authorities who are also not the debtors of the petitioner nor of those two companies for these two companies have not paid any excess duty on those goods. 9. Hence, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the remaining contentions made on behalf of the respective parties, for the application is bound to fail on the merits for the reasons already stated. In the premises, the Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
