UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANR. Vs. SILCHAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
Silchar Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
D.M. Sen, J. -
(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendant No. 1 Union of India and defendant No. 2 Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Silchar, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge, Silchar, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 6,395.12 P. with costs.
(2.) THE plaintiff, namely Silchar Electric Supply Company Limited, had filed a suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,395.12 P. alleged to have been paid in excess as Central Excise duty for purchase of furnace oil from defendant No. 3, namely M/s. Burma Oil Company (India Trading) Limited was impleaded as a proforma defendant in the suit, but the plaintiff did not claim any relief against that defendant vide paragraph 8 of the plaint. Plaintiff's case is that it had been granted a license under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (L. 6 No. l/SIL/DGVL/63), whereby he was entitled to purchase the oil in question from defendant No. 3 free of any Excise duty. He had, however, paid a sum of Rs. 3205.05 on 18.12.63 as duty for purchase of a consignment of the furnace oil from defendant No. 3. He had also paid a sum of Rs. 3190.07 as excise duty on 25.01.64 for similar purchase of furnace oil from the said company, defendant No. 3. The plaintiff's contention is that since it was not required to pay any excise duty for the aforesaid purchases, it is now entitled to refund of the amount paid by it to defendant No. 3 from defendants 1 and 2, since defendant No. 3 paid the said amount to defendants 1 and 2. So far as the claim to the sum of Rs. 3,190.07 is concerned it appears that since it had been paid in January 1964, when admittedly the licence, granting the concession to the plaintiff, had expired, it would not be entitled to any refund. In other words, since even according to the plaintiff's claim, the exemption that was allowed to it was only for the year 1963. any excise duty paid by plaintiff in January 1964 would not be covered by such exemption and the plaintiff would accordingly be not entitled to any refund thereof.
(3.) WE now have to consider how far the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the sum of Rs. 3205.05 paid as excise duty on 18.12.63 is recoverable from defendants 1 and 2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.