ROTOGRAVURS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturing unit inter alia carrying out job work of reengraving on second-hand rollers. The petitioner filed classification list dated October 5, 1985 for classification of the product as non-excisable on the ground that the process does not amount to manufacture. The petitioners claimed that CEGAT had also decided in the case reported in 1985 (21) ELT 562 (M/s. Uday Textile Engineering) that the work undertaken by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by order dated January 21, 1986 accepted the claim of the petitioner.

(2.) THE Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated February 17, 1986 directed the petitioner to file advance classification list in view of the new Tariff Act becoming effective from March 1, 1986. The petitioner filed classification list on February 24, 1986 and pointed out earlier order dated January 21, 1986 passed by respondent No. 3 approving the product as non-excisable. The superintendent of Central Excise directed clearance of the product as excisable under sub-heading No. 84. 62 of the new tariff. The petitioner filed fresh classification list on April 2, 1986. The petitioner informed that the clearance would be under protest and the duty is paid by reserving contention that the product is non-excisable. The contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the Assistant Collector by order dated December 29, 1989. The petitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and the appeal was allowed by order dated april 5, 1990. The result of the order of the appellate authority is that the product of the petitioner was held as non-excisable on the ground that the work undertaken does not amount to manufacture.

(3.) IN pursuance of the order passed by the Assistant Collector earlier on January 21, 1986 and view of the order passed by the appellate authority holding that the work carried out by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture and consequently the petitioner is not liable to payment of excise duty, several claims for refund for period commencing from December 11, 1985 and ending with March 31, 1990 were filed before the Assistant Collector of Central excise. The total claim was Rs. 5,59,301/- and the break-up is set out in the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector served six show cause notices upon the petitioner to explain why refund claims should not be rejected as time-barred and inadmissible. The petitioner filed replies pointing out that the refund claims have arisen as a result of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and consequently the limitation cannot be claimed under Section 11b (3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The petitioner also pointed out that it is not permissible for the Department to deny refund on the principle of unjust enrichment in view of catena of decisions of this Court.