9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t falling under the Central Excise Tariff Item No. 1901.19. They have filed price lists for the years 1986-87,1987-88,1988-89,1989-90 and 1990-1991 on 13-9-1987, 19-8-1988, 21-8-1989, 7-9-1990 and 16-7-1991 respectively. 3. In the price lists the petitioner-company has claimed deductions from the prices on account of trade discounts, freight, insurance, turnover tax, octroi, sales tax, basic excise duty and special excise duty and distribution expenses. The Assistant Collector by order dated 31-10-1991 finalised the price lists and allowed dedications from the prices in respect of all the items except the distribution expenses. On appeal, the Collector confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector by his order dated 14-9-1992. 4. In purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.L.A. is erroneous as the petitioner-company has not passed on the incidence of duty to the customers. 8. Section 11A confers jurisdiction on the Central Excise Authorities to recover duty erroneously refunded and under Section 11B(3) of the Act, not- withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. Section 11B of the Act provides that when an application for refund of any duty of excise is made, the Assistant Collector of Excise shall satisfy himself that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. The manufacturer deposited the amount in the High Court and the Union of India received the said amount between 24th February, 1986 and 14th August, 1986. The Collector in the meanwhile allowed the appeal of the manufacturer. In other words, the claim of the manufacturer for concessional rate of duty was allowed. The manufacturer then filed a claim for refund of duty deposited in pursuance of the interim order of the High Court and received by the Union of India, before the Assistant Collector. The manufacturer also approached the High Court in the writ petition that was pending for a direction to The Assistant Collector to refund the duty deposited by them in pursuance of the interim order of the Court. The Union of India resisted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be withdrawn by the Union of India subject to the condition that the Union of India should pay interest and refund the duty within two months in case the manufacturers succeed, unless they succeed in showing to the statutory authorities that they had not passed on the whole or any part of the duty in question to others. 10. It is true that the Supreme Court was considering a case where an application for refund is pending whereas in the present case, the refund has already been effected. However, Section 11A read with Section 11B of the Act confers jurisdiction on the authorities to recover duty alleged to have been erroneously refunded and it is for the manufacturer to prove that the refund is not erroneous. Therefore, we are unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
