9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have been paid by the petitioner for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1979 and consequently direct refund of the same. 3. W.P. 10776 of 1983 has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12-10-1983 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 26-3-1983 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess central excise said to have been paid by the petitioner in respect of the period from 1-9-1979 to 30-11-1980 and consequently direct refund of the same. 4. W.P. 10777 of 1983 has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27-7-1983 confirming the order of the second res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector to the Appellate Collector, Madras, by an order passed on 24-10-1981, the Appellate Authority held that the cost of metal drums should be excluded from the price of calcium and returnable. Deriving inspiration by the said order, the petitioner appears to have filed three claim applications on 7-4-1982, 28-4-1982 and 4-11-1982 claiming refund of a sum of Rs. 8,28,166.97, Rs. 2,06,204.75 and Rs. 10,55,738.08 respectively. The application dated 7-4-1982 was in respect of the period from 1-9-1979 to 3-11-1980, while the one dated 28-4-1982 was for the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-8-1979 and the other application dated 4-11-1979 was in respect of the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1979. The application dated 7-4-1982, 28-4-1982 and 4-11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provision of an Act are bound by the stipulation contained in the Act pertaining to the grant of refund and that no exception could be taken to the impugned order passed in the above cases. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the claim in the cases on hand was a belated one and that even on merits, the petitioner in all the above cases is not entitled to the refund. Argued the learned counsel further that the request of the petitioner for refund if complied with would also amount to perpetuating unjust enrichment the petitioner having passed on the burden by collecting the excise duty also from their purchasers as well as ultimate consumers. Finally, reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferring to every one of those judicial pronouncements produced by them in support of their respective submissions. 9. In the above circumstances, without entering into an adjudication of the merits and the claim for refund made by the petitioner or the legality or correctness of the stand taken by the respondents to deny the same, the impugned orders are hereby quashed to facilitate the concerned and competent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner on merits including any plea of limitation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Amendment Act, 40/1991. The petitioner, in addition to the representations and claims made already which culminated in the impugned proceedings shall be at liberty to make such further or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
