MEGHDOOT LAMINATE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the appropriate provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder thereof. Petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of decorative laminated sheets. According to the petitioners, they paid duty of excise on the goods manufactured and cleared by them under mistaken belief. Therefore, they made refund claim dated August 30, 1988 for Rs. 1,83,80,930.05 ps. (Rupees one crore eighty three lakhs eighty thousand nine hundred thirty and paise five). According to the petitioners the duty was payable under tariff item No. 68, while they had paid duty under erroneous belief that duty was payable under tariff item No. 15A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The period during which the amount of excise duty was paid was from April 1, 1974 to February 28, 1975 and from March 1, 1975 to August 31, 1983. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division VI, Ahmedabad, issued show cause notice to the petitioners inter alia calling upon petitioners to explain as to why the claim be not rejected as time barred under the provisions of Sec. 11B of the Act. The petitioners appeared before the Assistant Collector and made their submissions. After hearing the petitioners, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the following grounds :

(2.) Against the aforesaid order the petitioners praferred appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) at Bombay. The Collector rejected the appeal vide his order dated September 25, 1989. After observing that the petitioners were granted refund for the period commencing from September 1, 1983 to February 28, 1986 vide order dated January 20, 1987, passed by the Collector (Appeals), the Collector has observed as follows:

(3.) As far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of sec. 11B of the Act is concerned. The question is concluded against the petitioners by Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Wigmen Elec. Engg. Industries vs. Union of India. Nothing is pointed out to us to take a different view. In fact, on this point no argument whatsoever is advanced. In view of the settled legal position the prayer as regards the constitutionality of the provisions of Sec. 11-B of the Act is required to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.