BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH petitions filed by M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited were heard together and with the conclusion of the submissions, Writ Petition No. 3679 of 1989 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 199 of 1993 was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later. Accordingly, we record our reasons based on facts enumerated hereinafter.

(2.) BOTH these petitions were heard together since the cause of action in both these petitions originate from the amount already refunded by the respondents to the petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 3679 of 1989, the petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in claiming excise duty by redetermining the assessable value by including the amount of refund already granted, as price realisation under section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Excise Act for short ). In Writ Petition No. 199 of 1993, the petitioners challenge the show cause notice dated 2-9-1992 issued under section 11-A/11-D of the Excise Act, as amended in 1991 to recover the entire amount refunded to the petitioners in the year 1988. FACTS IN BRIEF

(3.) SINCE the facts upto the date of grant of refund are common in both these writ petitions, it will be proper to set out the relevant facts upto the date of grant of refund, before dealing with the controversy raised in these two petitions.