LAWS(APH)-1991-8-24

EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT Vs. SHALINI BEER AND WINES

Decided On August 30, 1991
EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, KARIMNAGAR Appellant
V/S
SHALINI BEER AND WINES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents in W.P.No. 12176/89 are the appellants in this Appeal. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition and directed refund of countervailing duty and import fee by the end of February, 1991, failing which,the amount was to carry interest at 9% from 1-3-1991. Appellants challenge the correctness of the above judgment.

(2.) The facts involved are briefly as follows: We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the writ petition. Petitioner was holding a licence for wholesale distribution of alcoholic liquors at Karimnagar in the State. He applied for five import permits for import of U.B. Export Lager Beer from M/s. Indo Lowenbraw Breweries, Faridabad, and obtained permit Nos. 39 to 43. He could utilise only one of the permit Viz., No. 39 dt. 4-2-88 by importing 7800 BLs of beer. Since he could not import liquor under the other permits viz., 40 to 43, he applied for their extension and revalidation. Even during that period he could not import the liquor. He then applied for change of brand and Brewery. But no formal orders were issued thereafter. Petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 93.000/ towards countervailing duty and Rs. 31,200/- towards import fee for obtaining the five permits, since his application for extension of validity of the permit was not granted, he sought recovery of the amounts collected as countervailing duty and import fee. Thereafter on 31-8-1989 he filed W.P.No. 12176/89. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition holding that countervailing duty is leviable only on excisable goods imported into the State and naturally therefore such import duty cannot be retained by the State if import was not effected. The learned single judge hold that countervailing duty collected in advance should be refunded to the petitioner because the liquor was not imported. It was for that reason that the court directed refund of countervailing duty and import fee in regard to the import permits mentioned in the writ petition by the end of February, 1991,filing which interest at9% was to be paid from 1-3-1991. Respondents filed the appeal on 19-12-1990 and obtained interim orders on 4-3-1991.

(3.) There are two aspects which fall for consideration one relating to import fee and the other relating to countervailing duly. The relevant facts are the following: - Petitioner applied for five import permits by paying countervailing duty and import fee in advance. He had imported liquor pursuant to one of those permits. Countervailing duty and import fee in respect of that permit was therefore duly levied and no question of refund of those amounts could have arisen for consideration before the learned single judge.