9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has made two submissions in support of this petition, namely, (1) as the petitioner deposited the excise duty under protest, the period of limitation of six months fixed by Section 11B will not be applicable; and (2) if the excise duty is paid under mistake of law, the claim for its refund can be made within three years of the discovery of such a mistake. As the petitioner discovered the mistake from the Supreme Court decision in Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), the claim for refund of duty made by it was within three years therefrom and, therefore, it could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondents, has disputed the above submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of break-up (financial year-wise) are as follows :- Years Amount of duty on 1975-76 freight paid Rs. P. (From Oct., 1975 to March, 1976) 21,993.36 1976-77 87,848.90 1977-78 23,280.23 1978-79 1,12,972.19 1979-80 1,55,433.90 1980-81 28,273.18 1981-82 3,74,089.79 1982-83 3,91,538.53 1983-84 1,44,163.25 (From April to June, 1983) 13,39,593.33 We would request you to sanction the said amount forthwith. Thanking you." 6. After receipt of the above application, the Assistant Collector, vide his letter dated 4-8-1986 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en raised before the departmental authorities cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Writ jurisdiction; and secondly it is true that in Paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 11 of the Writ Application, it has been stated that the petitioner paid the duty under protest but the documents filed in support thereof (Annexures 2, 3 and 4) do not support them. The petitioner has claimed the refund of duty for the period from October, 1975 to June, 1983. Annexure-2 is the letter dated 26-9-1975 in which it has been mentioned that the payment of duty has been made under protest. This letter relates to the period prior to October, 1975 and, therefore, is not very much relevant for considering the claim of refund from October, 1975 onwards. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht within three years of discovery of such a mistake from the decision of the Court. The case of the petitioner before the departmental authorities was that it raised the claim for refund of duty within three years after it came to know the correct legal position from the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). Presuming that the said decision has any relevance about the petitioner's liability to excise duty it was a case filed by another person and not by the petitioner. Therefore, this submission is also devoid of merit. 9. The controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the majority decision of the Nine Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
