KAUSHAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is engaged in the manufacture of various iron and steel products falling under Item 26aa (ia) of the Central Excise Tariff. It also manufactures bars which are below 3 mm in thickness. These bars were considered as flats. As a result, the petitioner was made to pay excise duty. This duty was paid under protest. According to the petitioner, he paid a total duty of Rs. 48,27,654. 65 for the years 1978-79 to July 31,1988. According to a statement filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the total duty of Rs. 77,98,212. 89 had been paid up to the year 1990-91. The petitioner claims that he persued the remedies under the Act. Its revision petition against the orders passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 182 to 262-CE/81 were referred to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal accepted the revision petition and allowed the claim of the petitioner. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-45. In spite of the fact that this order was passed on July 14, 1986, the amount paid by the petitioner has not been refunded to it till now. The present writ petition has been filed for the issue of a mandamus for the refund of the amount due to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 15 per cent.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, a short reply has been filed by Mr. Charanjit Singh, Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Patiala. In this reply, it has been, inter alia, averred that the Tribunal, while deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioner, had also decided the case of Messrs Rama Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh. In the case of Messrs Rama Steel Rolling Mills, the department had filed an appeal and a stay application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the order of the Tribunal on October 20,1987. It has been further averred that the department has also filed an appeal and stay application in the Supreme Court against the Order No. 431/86-B-l passed by the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner. Reference has also been made to the two orders passed by this Court in C. W. P. No. 9414 of 1988 and C. W. P. No. 7070 of 1988. It has also been averred that the respondents have the highest regard for the orders passed by any Court or Tribunal and they did not have any intention to disobey, disregard or otherwise not honour any order passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) MR. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reply was filed on behalf of the respondents in January, 1989. Thereafter, the matter has been conclusively decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise and Others v. M/s. Calcutta Steel Industries and Others, AIR 1989 SC 603. By this judgment, the Apex Court has accepted the view expressed by the Tribunal in another similar case. He has further pointed out that even though the department had filed a petition against the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rama Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh, but no appeal had been filed against the order passed in favour of the petitioner. The petition against the Order No. 431/86-Bl passed by the Tribunal which is alleged to have been filed by the respondents, was not an appeal against the order at Annexure P-45. Furthermore, the counsel urges that the respondents on their own showing had not obtained any stay order against the refund of the amount due to the petitioner till today. On this premises, the learned counsel submits that there is no justification for the respondents in not refunding the amount due to the petitioner. The counsel claims that the respondents should be directed to refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent.