GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein made an attempt to recover two amounts of Rs. 45,71,565. 21 and Rs. 91,996. 65 before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Vide order dated April 28,1987, the application submitted by the petitioners on March 19,1987, was allowed to the extent that a refund of Rs. 30,805. 05 was permitted. The claim for the refund of the remaining amount was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner-company along with one of the shareholders, who is also its Vice President, has approached this Court through the present petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics of different varieties. It produces certain varieties of yarns containing different percentages of polyester, viscose, acrylic and cotton. From the year 1977 to 1980, it is averred, that the company paid excise duty under the mistaken belief that the goods produced by it were covered under Tariff Item Nos. 18 III (ii) and 18-E. It is claimed that in fact the yarns produced by the company fell under Tariff Item No. 68 and were covered under the exemption granted by the Govt, of India. According to the petitioners, no duty was leviable on the yarn produced by them. The petitioners claim to have discovered this factual position when the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) decided the matter by an order conveyed to the company on January 22,1987. It is averred that after the receipt of the order, the petitioner-company realised its mistake regarding the payment of excise duty for the period from June 18, 1977 to January 24, 1980 and accordingly moved an application for refund of the amounts paid under a mistake of law. Its claim for the major part of the amount having been declined by the orders mentioned above, the company has approached this Court through the present petition. It has been inter alia averred that the yarn in question had not been sold to the consumers and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioners having recovered the excise duty from the consumers. According to the petitioners, the yarn was consumed in the manufacture of fabrics either within the factory of production or in another factory belonging to them at Gwalior. On this premises, it has been averred that the excise duly has not been recovered from the consumers. A number of ground have been raised for challenging the impugned order.

(3.) THE petitioners had initially filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1491 of 1987 before the High Court of Delhi. That petition was withdrawn "with liberty to take such steps as are permissible under the law". Accordingly, leave was granted and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners do not appear to have taken any further steps, like filing of appeal etc. and have approached this Court through the present petition.