Back
Supreme Court Of India
Assitant Collector of Central Excise
Versus
Kashyap Engineering and Metallurgical Private Limited
Decided on : April 18, 2002
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Section 11B - Limitation as to Refund of duty - Respondent claimed refund of excise duty which was beyond the permissible period under the Act- The refund claim rejected by the authorities but writ petition allowed by the High Court- It has been held in Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, (89 ELT 247), that the Court, must take note of the provisions of the Act- Since the claim was beyond the period prescribed under the Act, respondent was not entitled to the same- Appeal allowed.[Paras 2, 3]
( 1 ) THE respondent has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance.
( 2 ) THE assessee-respondent made a claim for refund of excise duty underthe provisions of the Excise Act which was beyond the permissible period thereunder. The refund claim having been rejected by the authorities, a writ petition was moved and allowed. The Revenuepreferred a writ appeal, which was dismissed. The point now is covered by thedecision of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, (89 ELT 247), where it has been held that the Court, in a writ petition, has to take note of the provisions of the Act and must exercise its discretion consistent with those provisions. Much the same view was earlier taken in the judgment of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, (37 ELT 478)
( 3 ) THE civil appeals are, therefore, allowed. The order under appeal is set aside.
( 4 ) NO order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
