PFIZER LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in all these petitions is whether this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should order refund of excise duty paid because of erroneous interpretation of Tariff item or exemption Notification or ignorance of such Notification, despite the fact that such applications were filed before the authority beyond the prescribed period of six months as provided under Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Re : Writ Petition No. 1656 of 1987.

(2.) THE petitioners-Pfizer Limited-manufacture pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs liable to excise duty under Item 14e of the First Schedule to the said Act. In the manufacture of the said drugs, the Petitioners use guillotine capsules and rubber plugs, both liable to duty under the erstwhile Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act.

(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('rules', for short), the Central Government had issued a Notification, being Notification No. 201 of 1979 dated 4th June, 1979 (Exhibit "a" to the Petition) granting exemption to goods in which inputs classified under Item 68 of the First Schedule were used, from so much of the duty of excise as was equivalent to duty of excise on inputs, provided the conditions laid down and the procedure under the said Notification were followed.