9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d paid excise duty amounting to a sum of 3,64,961/-. On 12-4-1979 the Company was informed by its customer that there was a Notification in force issued by the Central Government, according to which there was an exemption from payment of excise duty on copper and copper alloy castings. On 20th of April 1979 the respondent addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise, seeking clarification regarding exemption of Copper and Copper alloy castings. The Superintendent of Central Excise in his letter dated 28-11-1979 confirmed that the product was exempt from payment of Excise Duty under notification No. 119/66-C.E., dated 16-7-1966. Thereafter the respondent made two refund claim applications on 27-9-1980 and 29-12-1980. These appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be ordered. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the appellants who were respondents in the writ petitions have filed this appeal. 4. Shri Ashok Haranahally, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, contended that Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules did not authorise the Central Board of Excise and Customs to give any directions contrary to any of the Rules and therefore the Circular in question which was contrary to Rule 11 of the Rules was not binding on the authorities and was unenforceable. The learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. I.T.O. (131 I.T.R. 597) and other decisions of the Supreme Court holding that Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, 27-9-1980 and 29-12-1980. On 31-8-1984 the refund applications were rejected in so far as it related to the period prior to six months as barred by limitation. Thereafter, the writ petitions were presented. Even on the basis that the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise could not be enforced, it is clear that this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Governmental Authorities to refund tax or excise duty collected or paid without liability in Law. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge directing the refund of the amount, has to be sustained on the ground that though the excise duty had been paid by mistake, its refund was refused. The learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs from 12-4-1979 the date of discovery of the mistake. But for the circular issued on 8-5-1973 the respondent would have filed suits, instead of making application for refund to the authorities. The Central Board of Excise which issued a Circular dated 8-5-1973 enabling the persons to apply for refund within a period of 3 years from the date of discovery of mistake cannot with any justification reject the applications made within three years and then take the stand that the respondent had filed the writ petition after the time fixed for suit and therefore the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is the Circular dated 8-5-1973 which misled the respondent to file refund applications and further it is the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
