JUDGMENT - P.B. SAWANT, J.:---The first petitioners are a company engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (F.R.P.) bodies for motor vehicles. According to them, the said F.R.P. bodies did not fall within any of the specific entries in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore fell for classification under the residuary entry, namely, Item No. 68 of the Schedule which provides for all other goods.

By Notification No. 118/75 dated April 30, 1975, the 1st Respondent Union of India exempted goods falling under the said Item No. 68 manufactured in the Factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Since the F.R.P. bodies manufactured by the petitioners were fitted to motor vehicles within the premises of the petitioners factory, although according to the petitioners the said F.R.P. bodies fall under Item 68, they paid excise duty thereon at the full rate of duty payable under that entry and did not avail of the exemption under the aforesaid Notification because they were under the bona fide belief that the notification applied only to goods which were up in their factory.

2. However, by a judgement dated December 10, 1985 in Writ Petition No. 382 of 1981 (Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. another v. Union of India and others)1, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the exemption under the Notification would apply to all goods manufactured in a factory when they are intended to be used in the factory in which they are manufactured and that there was nothing in the Notification to indicate that the use must be such as could not be repeated or that it must be such as results in the loss of further utility of the article. According to the petitioners they learnt of the judgment in July 1986 when it was reported in 1986(9) Excise and Customs Cases 14. The petitioners therefore discovered that they had paid excise duty on the said bodies by mistake during the period 1st March, 1983 to 20th February, 1986. By their application of December 10, 1986, they therefore applied to the 2nd respondent for refund of an amount of Rs. 22,10,894.68 being the excise duty erroneously paid during the aforesaid period.

3. While the said proceedings were pending, the petitioners also submitted another application dated 23rd February, 1987 to the 2nd respondent claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 8,15,312.08 being the excise duty erroneously paid during the period 1st January, 1980 to 28th February, 1983. Yet another application dated June 22, 1987 was filed by them to claim refund of Rs. 1,90,313.13 being the excise duty erroneously paid during the period 1st March, 1979 to 31st December, 1979.

4. By his three separate orders one of July 22, 1987 and two of July 30, 1987 the 2nd respondent rejected all the three claims for refund on the ground firstly, that the payments were not made under protest or provisionally and they were not recovered without the authority of law ; and secondly, on the ground that the claim for refund was made beyond six months of the payment which is the period of limitation under the Act. It is against these decisions that the petitioners have approached this Court by this petition under.

5. It is fairly conceded on behalf of the petitioners that they have recovered from their customers the whole of the excise duty involved in all the three claims. It is not therefore necessary for us to go into the question of limitation. We will proceed on the basis that the payment of

excise duty was made under a mistake of law and that all the claims are within time. We are of the view that since the petitioners have already recovered from their customers the whole of the duty, they are not entitled to its refund. Their claim for such refund amounts to a fraud on consumers, and the society. Any indulgence in their favour will amount to helping them t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document