1987 (8) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - The appellants (or. petitioners) pressed their claim before Sawant J. only in respect of two items. Of these two items only one is pressed before us. This item relates to a claim for refund in respect of headings under which deductions were found to be permissible by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for the period 1st July 1977 to 27th September 1979 and 1st January 1980 to 20th January .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in such circumstances would amount to permitting them to enrich themselves unjustly and to misappropriate moneys which properly belonged to their customers and the ultimate consumers. In the equitable and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the court should not countenance such claim. The learned judge cited authorities in support of his conclusion. These authorities included his d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uarely applicable to the controversy and not a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court cited by counsel on behalf of the authorities, namely, State of M.P. v. Vyankatlal, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 901. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 5. The respondents are directed to ascertain the amount of refund due to the appellants as aforesaid for the period 1st July 1977 to 27th September 1979 and 1st Jan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X