1991 (8) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondents. Heard counsel. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated July 19,1991 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division H, Bombay, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,42,092.74 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The petitioners were sanctioned refund claim of Rs. 1,42,092.74 b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... India) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1988 (38) Excise Law Times 37 (Bom.) held that the refund was erroneously paid. The Assistant Collector, therefore, directed the petitioners to repay the said amount of Rs. 1,42,092.74. The order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is under challenge. 3. Shri Pochkhanwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X