ASHOKA INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, Ashoka Industries, imported 15 consignments of 'Stainless Steel Strips and sheet Cuttings in length mixed sizes and thickness, 18/8 quality non-Magnetic Clean New Arising 4" to 15" wide mixed 3' to 8' long 14 to 30 SWG Mixed'. These consignments were assessed to duty under and at the rate prescribed in Item No. 73.15(2) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner under mistake, paid the duty in respect of the said stainless steel sheet cuttings under Tariff Item No. 73.15(2), whereas in fact, the duty was leviable under Tariff Item No. 73.15(1). As there was lot of difference in duty, between the said two items viz., 73(15)(1) and 73.15(2), the case of the petitioner is that if a correct duty would have been charged as per the classification, as alleged by the petitioner, there would have been a difference of Rs. 3,08,679.81 p. In other words, the petitioner alleges that it has paid the aforesaid amount as excess duty and the petitioner is entitled to get a refund of the same.

(2.) On 11th October 1982, the petitioner made an application for refund of the said amount and no order is writing was sent to the petitioner. Thereafter, it is alleged that on or about 11th May, 1983, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner's application for refund was rejected. This fact is alleged to have come to the knowledge of the petitioner persuant to oral enquiries. The petitioner filed this writ petition on or about 8th June, 1983, when a rule was directed to be issued as prayed for and an interim order was also made directing the Collector of Customs to refund the amount of Rs. 3,08,679.81 p. upon furnishing a bank guarantee by the petitioner in favour of the Collector of Customs.

(3.) I understand that such bank guarantee was duly furnished and the same is still subsisting in favour of the Collector of Customs. The petitioner prays that the Collector be directed to refund to the petitioner the said sum of Rs. 3,08,679.81 p. which, according to the petitioner, was paid by mistake of law.