9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duties from the petitioners to the extent of Rs. 2,73,736.94. There is a prayer for the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to make an entry of credit for the aforesaid amount in its personal ledger account. The petitioner is a public limited company and owns and operates a sugar factory at Bagpat Road, Meerut. The Central Government by its order dated 15th June, 1972, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, promulgated Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972, and for the sugar produced during the crushing season 1971-72 fixed the price of the levy Sugar for the petitioner's factory at Rs. 134.40 per quintal. The petitioner alongwith a large number of other sugar factorie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner placed reliance on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5751 of 1973, M/s Nawabganj Sugar Mills Company Limited v. Union of India and others, decided in November 11, 1974. In that case the petitioner challenged the validity of the demand requiring it to pay a certain amount by way of excise duty on sugar produced by it during the 1971-72 season. The view taken by the Court was that irrespective of the price that the petitioner actually charged for the levy sugar produced by it during the said season, the price determined by the Central Government was the preventing price and the excise and the additional excise duty on the levy sugar for the 1971-72 season could be calculated only at the rate of 2 3/4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case similar to the present one and the petitioner's claim for refund of excess excise duty paid by it which had been repelled by the excise authorities was allowed by this Court. In taking that view reliance was placed on the decision in M/s Nawabganj Sugar Mills case (Supra). The aspect which is engaging our attention was not considered in that case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a decision of the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore and another, 1978 E.L.T. (J 154) and of the Bombay High Court in Wipro Products Ltd. v. Union of India, 1981 E.L.T. 531. In D. Cawasji (Para 10) it has been laid down that a Court cannot deny refund tax even if the person who paid it has collected it from his customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing expenses are excludable for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value. In other words that was also a case where some payments by way of excise duty had been made under a mistake of law. The Court did not agree with the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. Union of India 1980 Excise Law Times 735 and the Madras High Court in M/s Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1981 E.L.T. 478 and chose to rely on an earlier decision of that very court and held that the petitioners claim was allowable. It would be seen that in both these cases excess payment had been made under a mistake of law which is not the position obtaining in the present case. 6. As noted above, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
