IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Gwalior Alcobrew Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13963 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Excise Duty Refund - Import Permit - Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Rule 2010 - Section 27, Rule 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought refund of excise duty and import permit fee after the goods intended for import to Delhi were intercepted and detained in Rajasthan, resulting in the import not being completed. The excise authorities rejected the refund application, citing absence of provision for such cases in the Delhi Excise Act and Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that since the import did not take place, the liability to pay excise duty did not exist. It directed the respondents to refund the excise duty and import fee deposited by the petitioner. The court also awarded interest at 3% from the filing of the writ petition till the date of payment.
Issues: The main issue was the availability of refund for excise duty and import fee in a case where the import did not fructify.
Ratio Decidendi: The liability to pay excise duty is imposed upon the importer only when the actual import takes place into Delhi, as per Section 27 of the Delhi Excise Act. Since the import did not fructify, the court held that the liability to pay the excise duty did not exist. The court also relied on the absence of provision for such refunds in the Act and Rules to direct the refund.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to refund the excise duty and import fee deposited by the petitioner and awarded interest at 3% from the filing of the writ petition till the date of payment.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. In the present petition, the Petitioner seeks refund of Rs.20,52,558/- given by it towards advance payment of excise duty along with refund of import permit fee of Rs.39,699/-.
3. In the year 2016, the Petitioner-Gwalior Alcobrew Private Limited, based in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, intended to dispatch 900 cases of Pure Gold Premium brand whisky from Madhya Pradesh to Delhi. It, accordingly, applied for obtaining export permit in Madhya Pradesh and the import permit in Delhi in terms of Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and the Rules framed thereunder. The requisite permits were obtained by the Petitioner after depositing excise duty to the tune of Rs.20,52,558/- and the import permit fee to the tune of Rs.39,699/-.
4. After obtaining the requisite permits, the Petitioner had put the bar code on the IMFL as mandated under the Delhi Excise Act. Thereafter, the products were dispatched from Gwalior but were intercepted at Dholpur, Rajasthan on 12th October, 2016 by Dholpur Excise circle inspectors and the same were detained. The said seizure, in effect, resulted in the import not being completed and concluded in Delhi.
5. The Petitioner has availed of its remedies qua the said illegal interception, which is not the subject matter of this petition.
6. In view of the goods having not been imported to Delhi, the Petitioners made an application dated 10th August, 2019 seeking refund of excise duty and import duty to Respondent No.3. Repeated representations seeking the refund of the excise duty as also the import fee were made by the Petitioner which were, however, not considered. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking following prayers:
"a) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature thereof, directing Respondent No.3 to refund Rs.20,52,558.00 along with applicable interest deposited towards advance excise duty against import of IMFL and Rs.39,666,00 along with interest being import permit fee;
b) in the alternative, issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondent No. 3 to adjust the advance excise duty of Rs.20,59,558.00 along with interest accrued towards future imports made by the Petitioner and Rs.39,666,00 along with accrued interest towards future import fee;"
7. On the last date of hearing i.e., on 27th September, 2022, this Court had directed as under:
"This writ petition has been preferred for directions being framed calling upon the respondents to refund Rs.20,52,558/- along with interest, the sum representing the Advance Excise Duty which was deposited as well as a sum of Rs.39,666/- being the amount paid towards import fee.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the import never fructified, there exists no justification for the respondents to retain the Advance Excise Duty that had been deposited. It is pointed out that the consignment in question had been illegally detained by the excise authorities in Rajasthan which was duly challenged by the petitioner. Once the petitioner succeeded in that challenge, the consignment is stated to have been transported back to Madhya Pradesh. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking release/refund as noticed above.
The Court notes that in support of the prayers that are made, a representation is already stated to have been made to the competent authority in the Excise Department. In view thereof, let the said representation be decided by the respondents and a decision taken thereon be placed on the record of this writ petition on or before the next date fixed.
List again on 13.01.2023."
8. Today, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents has placed on record the order dated 12th January, 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, GNCTD vide which the representation for refund has been rejecte
The liability to pay excise duty is contingent upon the actual import taking place, and in the absence of provision for refunds in the Act and Rules, the court can award interest on equitable grounds....
Since the provisions of section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable when a deposit is made without any statutory provision, as in the absence of a provision ....
The limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act can be adjusted based on the time spent before an incorrect authority.
Undisposed protest against duty payment exempts refund claim from S.11B limitation, independent of third-party judgments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.