9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice No. 8 of 1968. At the relevant time the first respondent itself had fixed the retail price of the said medicine at Rs. 91.89 under Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970. The Superintendent of Central Excise approved the retail price as above as the assessable value. Under the terms of the excise Notification 147 of 1970 dated 25th July, 1970 the petitioners opted to have their assessable value determined at 25% below the retail price. Since the Government approved retail price of Rs. 91.89 was loaded by 5%, the department, while approving the fresh price-list in November, 1975, declared the assessable value to be Rs. 96.48. However, again the rate of duty was increased from 24th March, 1976 from 7½% to 12½% ad valorem. Hence the price list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed by the Revenue against the High Court judgment in Geoffery Manners Limited was summarily dismissed and hence the petitioner-company was entitled to refund of the excess duty paid if the claim was otherwise in order. However, relying upon the provisions of rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the Collector took the view that the refund could be granted only for a period of six months and hence partly allowed the appeal to the extent of the refund claimed for the period of six months namely 1st June, 1979 to 20th November, 1979 amounting to Rs. 17,875.40. The rest of the claim to the tune of Rs. 1,12,944.48 was, however, rejected on the ground of limitation alone. It is this order of the Collector passed on 4th August, 1983 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fuse to grant the refund on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation under the provisions of the Excise Law. In this view of the matter, the petitioners would be entitled to the refund claimed subject to verification as usual. 5. Shri Rege, however, has contended that even assuming that the petitioner-company was entitled to claim the refund, granting of refund would amount to unjust enrichment of the petitioner-company. No doubt, an affidavit has been filed by the Asst. Collector making the usual averment that the duty recovered has been ultimately passed by the petitioner-company to the ultimate consumers. The further averment is that if the duty collected from the petitioner-company has been passed on by the petitioner-compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im being verified by the respondents. Accordingly, the order dated 4th August 1983, in so far as it rejects the claim of the petitioners beyond the period of six months, is set aside. The respondents are directed to verify the petitioners' claim for refund within a period of 12 weeks from today. On the respondents so verifying the amount, the refund should be granted to the petitioners within the period of 12 weeks from today. In the event of the respondents' failure to comply with the order as aforesaid, the respondents will be liable to pay interest to the petitioners at the rate of 15% p.a. from today till the date of payment on the amount of refund to be granted. 7. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
