9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ("the Act) which applied to "Vegetable non-essential oils". During the period from 4-5-1974 to 4-5-1979 the petitioner claimed full exemption of excise duty in respect of deodorised cocoa butter manufactured by it under Notification No. 33/63, dated 1-3-1963 which was duly allowed by the concerned authorities. On 4-5-1979, the petitioner was informed by the Superintendent of Central Excise that it was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 33/63 in respect of payment of excise duty on manufacture of deodorised cocoa butter. The petitioner was asked to furnish clearance figures from 4-1-1978 onwards. By another notice dated 4-3-1980, the petitioner was called upon to explain why an amount of Rs. 18,660 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of 1982, dated 28-2-1982. However, pending approval of the revised classification list, the petitioner continued to pay the duty "under protest" at the rate chargeable on goods falling under Item 12 of the Tariff Schedule. The revised classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 12-9-1984 and the item deodorised cocoa butter was classified as item falling under Tariff Item 68. 4.There is no dispute about the fact that on approval of the classification of the said item as item falling under Item No. 68, no duty was payable thereon. The approval was given on 12-9-1984. On 15-10-1984 the petitioner applied for refund of Rs. 1,80,301.38 being the excise duty paid by it on deodorised cocoa butter under a mistake of law for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Collector. According to the petitioner, period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act for filing of refund application does not apply to such refunds. 6.On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Bulchandani is that the petitioner, being in the line of business, should have known the correct classification and in any event having acted under a mistake of law for long ten years, the petitioner is not entitled to get relief from this Court under its writ jurisdiction. Counsel submits that even if it is held by this Court that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act for filing of application for refunds under the Act is not applicable to the claims for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acting under the mistaken interpretation of law, issued show cause notices to the petitioner, in pursuance of which the petitioner paid the duty for periods from 4-5-1974 onwards between the year 1978 to 1980. A mistake of law, in our opinion, does not cease to be mistake of law by lapse of time. It is also not material who was responsible for the mistake. Once it is held to be mistake of law, it has to be considered accordingly. In the instant case, it was a mistake of interpretation of a tariff item and which is a question of law and a mistake in that regard is nothing but a mistake of law. The payments were made by the petitioner under such mistake of law. The period of limitation for refund laid down in Section 11B of the Act, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
