Back
1997 Supreme(SC) 101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, Sujata. V. Manohar
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
V.I.P. INDUSTRIES LTD., BOMBAY, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 261 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 468 of 1991),
decided on January 22, 1997.
The court's decision was guided by the interpretation of the limitation period for claiming a refund of excise duty collected contrary to law.
Headnote:
Refund Application - Excise Duty - The court considered the refund application for excise duty collected contrary to law and the limitation period for claiming the refund.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a refund application for excise duty collected contrary to law. The Assistant Collector allowed the application only for a specific period and rejected the claim for the period beyond six months, citing limitation prescribed by law. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which allowed the petition and directed the application for refund for the entire period to be considered on merits without taking into consideration the question of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal, stating that the direction given by the High Court cannot stand in the light of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.
Issues: The main issue was the refund of excise duty collected contrary to law and the limitation period for claiming the refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which rendered the direction given by the High Court invalid.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent filed a refund application on 25-5-1979, for refund of the excise duty said to have been collected contrary to law during the period 1-3-1975 to 20-4-1979. This application was filed relying upon an order passed in the case of a manufacturer of similar goods. So far as the classification is concerned, the respondent has succeeded but the question here is with respect to refund of the duty said to have been collected contrary to law.
3. The Assistant Collector allowed the application only for the period 29-11-1978 to 20-4-1979, i.e., within six months period and rejected the claim of the respondent for the period beyond six months saying that it is barred by limitation prescribed by law. Against this order, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which has been allowed. The High Court has directed that the application for refund even for the period 1-3-1975 to 28-11-1978 be also considered on merits without taking into consideration the question of limitation.
4. It is obvious now that in the light of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536 : (1996) 9 Scale 457] the direction given by the High Court cannot stand. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
5. No costs.
