DYNAMATIC HYDRAULICS LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE V DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 3 petitions have come up for preliminary hearing after notice. The respondents have been served and they have been represented. Respondents' counsel has been heard.

(2.) The short question that falls for determination in this case is whether the claim of refund made by the petitioner-Company before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise which came to be partly disallowed may be sustained in law and refund of the duty paid under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 may be directed by a writ of mandamus.

(3.) The relevant facts may be stated and they are as follows : The petitioner-Company is in corporated under the Companies Act. It manufactures and sells parts and accessories of tractors and hydraulic gear-pumps and in that behalf it obtained licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The products of the company were classified under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Schedule I to the Act. But, after the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which was brought into force on 1-3-1986, the products of the company were classified under the Chapter Heading 87.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by mistake, instead of classifying the parts and accessories of motor vehicles under Chapter Heading 87.08 and hydraulic gear-pumps under Chapter Heading 84.13 of the said Tariff Act as required. The petitioner paid the duty for the following periods, viz., from 23-9-1987 to 18-11-1987, from 1-3-1986 to 30-3-1987 and from 21-3-1987 to 21-9-1987, by 3 separate applications. While the refund claimed is allowed for the period from 10-4-1987 to 18-11-1987, the rest of the claim was rejected by the 1st respondent as evidenced by his common order passed as at Annexure F to the petitions.