9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have been served and they have been represented. Respondents' counsel has been heard. 2. The short question that falls for determination in this case is whether the claim of refund made by the petitioner/Company before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise which came to be partly disallowed may be sustained in law and refund of the duty paid under the Central Excises and Salt Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hicles under Chapter Heading 87.08 and hydraulic gear pumps under Chapter Heading 84.13 of the said Tariff Act as required. The petitioner paid the duty for the following periods, viz., from 23-9-1987 to 18-11-1987, from 1-3-1986 to 30-3-1987 and from 21-3-1987 to 21-9-1987, by 3 separate applications. While the refund claimed is allowed for the period from 10-4-1987 to 18-11-1987, the rest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed in Section 11-B of the Act that prescription does not take away the right to claim refund of unauthorised levy and thereby deny the persons who have suffered the levy, the benefit of refund. 5. Identical question arose before this Court in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others. Applying the ratio decidendi in Patel India's case, refund was directed on the ground that what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied as a mistake of fact as contended by Mr. Padmarajaiah, learned counsel for the respondent. The amount is paid by mistake as to the law under which it was imposed to be paid and, therefore, the excess payment is resulted and it amounts to collecting excess duty under the Tariff Act. Therefore, the levy was unauthorised and it is liable to be refunded notwithstanding Section 11-B of the Act. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
