RAVINDRA AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Fatehgarh, rejecting the petitioner's application for refund, on the ground that his claim is barred by the provisions of Section 11 (B) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

(2.) The petitioner manufactures chewing tobacco. According to him it is unmanufactured tobacco. By an order dated 5-12-1985, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad classified it as manufactured Branded Chewing Tobacco, dutiable under the Act at the rate prescribed under Notification No. 35/79 CE, dated 1st March, 1989. Though this order of the Assistant Collector dated 5-12-1985 was an appealable order, the petitioner did not file an appeal against the same.

(3.) It appears that in certain seizure proceedings, the same very question was raised. According to the petitioner the orders passed in the said seizure proceedings upheld the petitioner's contention that the tobacco produced by him is not manufactured branded chewing tobacco and, therefore, not dutiable. Basing upon the said order in seizure proceedings, petitioner applied for refund which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the claim was barred by Section 11 (B) of the Act.