9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng pharmaceutical products (Patent and Proprietary Medicines) falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the manufacture of said patent and proprietary medicines, the petitioners were required to import, from time to time, different kinds of bulk drugs. In the present case, the petitioners had imported from Netherlands various quantities of Norgesterel U.S.P. ("the said goods", for short) during March, 1986 for manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines in India. 3.Upon arrival of the said goods in India, from time to time, during that period, the petitioners were required to pay the customs duty and also countervailing duty to the extent of 15% on the landed cost of the said goods. The total amount of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain goods at the level obtaining prior to 1st March, 1986, notwithstanding the changes in the rates of duties of excise made by the Finance Bill 1986. The effect of the said Retrospective Act was that all the exemption notifications relating to the said goods were deemed to have, and to have always had, effect on and from 1st March, 1986. As a result of coming into force of the said Retrospective Act, no excise duty whatsoever became payable on the said goods manufactured in India. 6.The petitioners, in the above backdrop, have raised the contention that since the said goods, manufactured in India, were not liable to any excise duty, the corresponding countervailing duty collected from the petitioners; as set out hereinabove; was illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred, is ex facie bad in law and demonstrates non application of mind. The submission of the petitioners is that the refund claims are the consequence of the Retrospective Act, which came into force on 8th September, 1986. The petitioners only after examining the retrospective operation of the said Retrospective Act realised that if no excise duty was payable on the said goods, then, no countervailing duty was attracted in respect of the importation of the said goods made by the petitioner. This has given rise to the refund claims. 11.In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides for levy of an additional duty. The duty, in other words, is in addition to the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (120) E.L.T. 54 (S.C.) in support of the proposition that the countervailing duty was not imposable as the said goods were exempted from the payment of central excise duty. He, therefore, urged that since the goods in question were not retrospectively liable to any excise duty, as such, for the same reasons, no countervailing duty was payable. The respondents, therefore, were not entitled to levy and collect the said countervailing duty, as such the collection thereof is without any authority of law. The petitioners, therefore, are liable to get refund of the said countervailing duty. 15.The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the countervailing duty was paid on 16th April, 1986. The refund claims were filed on 23rd October, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue on or after 3rd March, 1986 but before 8th August, 1986 were to be given retrospective effect. The duties of excise, which have been collected, would not have been so collected, had the exemption notification been in force at all material times, as such the duties of excise were to be refunded. The said Act further provided that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Customs before the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Retrospective Act. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is not necessary to dilate on the said issue in view of the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of six months as prescribed in the said Act. Consequently, their applications for refund could not have been rejected by the respondents holding it to be barred by limitation. For the purpose of finding limitation, the Retrospective Act would be the relevant Act and not Section 27 of the Customs Act, though refund claims shall be under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The adverse finding in this behalf is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 20.The question of doctrine of unjust enrichment in respect of the said refund claims is also no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court relying upon the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
