9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest Department of the Government of Karnataka. The tread rubber manufactured by the petitioner company is liable to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It pays levy under Tariff Item No. 16A (2) of the Schedule to the Act. By Notification No. 54/1979, dated 1-3-1979 the Government of India fixed the levy at 35 per cent ad valorem with effect from 1-3-1979 as against 36 per cent which was the earlier rate of levy. In the result, the petitioner-company was paying duty at 35 per cent on its product. However, by further Notification No. 186/1979 the Government of India withdrew the earlier Notification No. 54/1979. In the result, the petitioner was called upon by the 1st respondent As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent-Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mangalore, that the withdrawal of the Notification No. 54/1979 by Notification No. 186/1979 by the Government of India did not really alter the position inasmuch as the Finance Act of 1979 of the Government of India had clearly provided for levy of excise duty at 35 per cent only. In spite of the cause being shown, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mangalore, by his order dated 26-2-1981 rejected part of the claim for refund on the ground, the same was barred by limitation having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Rules. 5. It is useful to reproduce the operative portion of the order as the other facts are not in dispute. "I, therefore reject the refund clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Similarly, is the view taken by many other High Courts in India. 8. It will be useful to refer to a very recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kesoram Cements, Basantnagar v. Union of India and Others [1982 Excise Law Times, 214]. The learned Judges in the aforementioned case have also followed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court and affirmed the views of the other High Courts and held that a duty if collected illegally, refund of such duty cannot be denied by the Department on the ground that assessees had passed on the same to the consumer as there was no such condition in Section 11B of the Act. The contention that if refund is granted it would result in unjust enrichment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
