PREM CABLES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

(2.) IT is not necessary to state the facts in detail, for, the learned counsel for the parties submit that this writ petition is squarely covered by R.J. Engineering and Iron Re -Rolling Mills v. Union of India SB Civil Writ Petition No. 277 of 1977 decided on November 27, 1984 - 1985 (22) ELT 782 (Raj.). It may be stated here that while admitting this writ petition on January 23, 1979, this writ petition was ordered to be connected with S.B. Civil writ petition no. 277/77: R.J. Engineering and Iron Re -Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, which was decided on November 27, 1984 1985 (22) ELT 782 (Raj). The petitioner submitted a revised classification list on April 15, 1972 to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Pali claiming assessment of A.A.C. and A.C.R.S. conductors at 4%. The Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jodhpur rejected it by order annexure 1 dated August 8, 1972. The appeal was decided by order Annexure 2 dated October 25, 1975. The revision was accepted by the Central Government by order annexure 3 dated April 1, 1978 holding that petitioner's products (A.A.C. and A.C.S.R. conductors) were not liable to be charged with excise duty at the rate of 5%. By virtue of notification no. 125/70, which became effective from June 1, 1970, the petitioner became entitled to the refund of Rs. 50,900.78 on account of the differential excise duty (5% and 496) from June 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971. The petitioner submitted refund claims for the subsequent periods from time to time. The Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jodhpur (non -petitioner no. 3) by his order no. 20661 dated August 8, - 1973, rejected the claim for the refund of the central excise duty amounting to Rs. 58,861.10 on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, holding that the petitioner's claim to concessional assessment at the rate of 4% had been rejected by him by his order no. 20652 dated August 8, 1972. The Appellate Collector, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi (non -petitioner no. 2), by his order (Annexure 5) dated October 29, 1975, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner's appeal in the matter of concessional assessment (revised classification list) had been rejected by his order dated October 3, 1973. He also held that the petitioner's refund claims were not admissible and had been correctly rejected by non -petitioner no. 3. A revision was filed under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, New Delhi. The petitioner's claim regarding revised classification list (i.e., claim to concessional rate of excise duty at 4% in place of 5%) had already been accepted by order annexure 3 dated April 1, 1978 and, therefore, it agreed in principle that the petitioner was entitled to claim refund of differential excise duty paid over and above 4%. It, however, did not allow the entire claim of the petitioner for refund and dismissed the same for the period from April, 1970 to September, 1971 vide its order dated April 6, 1978 on the ground that the same was barred by time under Rule 11 read with Rule 173 J of the Rules. This order was sent to the petitioner under an endorsement no. F. 195/8/10/120/76 -CXV dated May 25, 1978/December 22, 1978, which was received by the petitioner on or about December 26, 1978. The writ petition was filed for the reliefs claimed by the petitioner on January 9, 1979.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. L.R. Mehta, assisted by Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the non -petitioners.