JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, C.J.:---The only question involved in all these petitions is whether this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should order refund of excise duty paid because of erroneous interpretation of Tariff item or exemption notification or ignorance of such notification, despite the fact that such applications were filed before the authority beyond the prescribed period of six months as provided under section 11-B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

Re : Writ Petition No. 1656 of 1987

2. The petitioners-Pfizer Limited-manufacture pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs liable to excise duty under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the said Act. In the manufacture of the said drugs, the petitioners use guillotine capsules rubber plugs, both liable to duty under the erstwhile Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act.

3. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Rules', for short), the Central Government had issued a Notification, being Notification No. 201 of 1979 dated 4th June 1979 (Exhibit "A" to the petition) granting exemption to goods in which inputs classified under Item 68 of the First Schedule were used, from so much of the duty of excise as was equivalent to duty of excise on inputs, provided the conditions laid down the procedure under the said Notification were followed.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that they had paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,48,300.00 during the period from July 1979 to February 1986 in respect of which they were entitled to claim exemption from payment of excise duty and, therefore, the said amount ought to be refunded to them. A letter to that effect was addressed to the Collector of Central Excise on 17th November, 1986 (Exhibit "C" to the petition). By his letter dated nil December 1986 (Exhibit "D" to the petition), the Assistant Collector informed the petitioners that their request was considered carefully since the petitioners had not complied with the requisite conditions stipulated in the aforesaid Notification, the Department was not agreeable to the petitioners' contention and there was no question of condonation of delay hence the petitioners' request was rejected.

5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for refund, the petitioners have filed this petition in June 1987 after having issued the letter on 7th May, 1987 to the Collector of Central Excise in that behalf.

6. In substance, it is the contention of the petitioners that though they were entitled to get benefit of exemption Notification dated 4th June, 1979, they paid the excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,48,300.00 during the period from July 1979 to February 1986 and, therefore, the said amount should be refunded to them by the respondents. For getting the said refund, a letter was written on 17th November, 1986 to the Collector of Central Excise. The prayer in the said letter was rejected by the Excise authorities without giving any hearing by holding that the petitioners had not complied with the requisite conditions of filing declarations and also because of non-filing of intimation following other procedure prescribed in the Notification dated 4th June, 1979. On these grounds the application of the petitioners for refund was rejected.

7. The question that arises for our determination is whether in such cases this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India grant refund as prayed for by the petitioners on the alleged ground that there was mistake of law or fact in not claiming benefit of the exemption Notification. In our view, no such refund can be granted for the reasons stated hereinafter.

8. Mr. Rana, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions in support of the claim for refund :-

Contention No. 1 :

The amount paid by way of duty to the extent of exemption was p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document