CHATOR BHUJ MITTAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of steel ingots from old iron and steel melting scrap as also from imported steel melting scrap which manufacturing process they are doing with the aid of electric furnance. For this purpose they are running a factory in Una under the name and style of Mittal Udyog.

(2.) Hitherto the petitioners have been paying excise duty on the steel ingots manufactured by them in terms of Tariff item No. 26 of the First Schedule attached to the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The contention of the petitioners is that they had been paying such excise duty under a mistaken conception of law as on a true interpretation of the relevant provisions of Section 3 of the Act read with Tariff item No. 26 of the First Schedule thereto, no such excise duty is leviable on the manufacture of steel ingots from out of steel melting scrap. The petitioners accordingly vide their representation dated 26 -12 -1980 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise & Customs with copies to Inspector Central Excise Una and Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh disputed their liability to pay excise duty on the steel ingots manufactured by them. A copy of this representation is found at Annexure P.1. The stand taken by the petitioners was, however, not accepted by the Excise Authorities according to whom the item of steel ingots manufactured by the petitioners was very much chargeable to excise duty as the same fell under Tariff item No. 26 of the First Schedule attached to the Act. The Excise Authorities accordingly repudiated the stand taken by the petitioners that they were not liable to pay the excise duty and vide their letters found at Annexure P. 2, P. 3, P. 5, P. 8, and P. 9, the various authorities of the Central Excise & Customs Department called upon the petitioners to continue paying the excise duty on the steel ingots manufactured by them as before failing which they would be liable for the contravention of the Excise Rules.

(3.) The petitioners have now approached this Court -under Article 226/227 of the Constitution praying for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing the notices found at Annexures P. 2, P. 3, P. 5, P. 8, and P. 9 and further restraining the respondents from demanding any excise duty from the petitioners in respect of the steel ingots manufactured by them. The petitioners have further prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to refund the excise duty already paid by them as per statement: found at Annexure P. 10 attached with the petition. They have also prayed that the respondents be directed to refund any other amount which the petitioners might have to pay by way of excise duty in addition to what has been stated in the statement Annexure P. 10.