UNION OF INDIA Vs. PARLE BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, admittedly, the refund claims were filed beyond the period prescribed by the rules as in force prior to 6/8/1977. The Assistant collector rejected them on the said ground. The High court, has, however, directed the refund claims to be examined applying the rule of three years' limitation. It is obvious that the said decision of the High court cannot stand in view of the decision of this court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India'. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the judgment of the High court is set aside. No costs.

(2.) In this case, the application for refund has been rejected by the assistant Collector, central Excise, insofar as it pertained to the period anterior to six months from the date of application. The High court, has however, allowed the writ petition applying the rule of three-year limitation. The judgment of the High court is set aside in view of the decision of this court in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India'. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

(3.) In this case, refund application was admittedly made beyond six months from the date of payment. The matter is governed by Section 11-B of the central Excises and Salt Act, as it stood prior to 1991 Amendment Act. The High court has, however, applied three-year rule and allowed the writ arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 24424-24-A of 1995 and 4711 of 1992petition. In the light of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries' the appeal is allowed and the order of the High court is set aside. No costs.