Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 738
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.
Union of India, Petitioner
Versus
Bhadra Sahakari Sakkare Karkhana Niyamit, Respondent.
Spl. Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19708 of 1995, D/- 31-7-1998.
Advocates appeared
N. K. Bajpayee, Sr. Advocate, S. Wasim A. Qadri Advocate and V. K. Verma Advocate, for Petitioner; B. K. Choudhary, Advocate, for E. C. Vidya Sagar Advocate, for Respondent.
Interpretation of Rule 330(b) for duty payment under protest and determination of time-bar for refund application.
Headnote:
Rule 330 - Duty Payment Under Protest - The court relied on the interpretation of Rule 330(b) as per the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536, to determine the time-bar for refund application and found that the demand for refund was time-barred due to the late filing of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contended that the demand for refund from 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 would get time-barred as the application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that even though the petitioner was on a stronger footing on the question of law, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, they were not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 330(b) for duty payment under protest and determination of time-bar for refund application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India to interpret Rule 330(b) and found that the demand for refund was time-barred due to the late filing of the application.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Judgement
ORDER :- Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is right when he contends relying upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 that as per Rule 330 (b) the payment of duty under protest can be said to have taken place only when a letter of protest was delivered to the proper officer and that date is found by the Assistant Collector to be 15-9-1981. He therefore submits that the demand for refund from 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 would get time-barred as the application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982. The duty paid for the disputed period amounts to Rs. 37,000/- and odd. As the amount involved is too small even though we agree with learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on the question of law he is on a stronger footing, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
