ASSTT COLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KASHYAP ENGG AND METALLURGICALS PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 18,2002
ASSITANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Appellant
VERSUS
KASHYAP ENGINEERING AND METALLURGICAL PRIVATE LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH VS. DOABA CO OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD [REFERRED]COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH VS. DOABA CO OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD [REFERRED]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
UNITED NEWS OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-1-36] [REFERRED]COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DIBRUGARH VS. KHUSHI AROMATICS [LAWS(CE)-2008-12-162] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CONCORD FORTUNE MINERALS (I) P. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-192] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BANCO PRODUCTS (INDIA ) LIMITED VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-221] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCE PAUL JOHN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The respondent has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance.
(2.)The assessee-respondent made a claim for refund of excise duty underthe provisions of the Excise Act which was beyond the permissible period thereunder. The refund claim having been rejected by the authorities, a writ petition was moved and allowed. The Revenuepreferred a writ appeal, which was dismissed. The point now is covered by thedecision of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Union of India, (89 ELT 247), where it has been held that the Court, in a writ petition, has to take note of the provisions of the Act and must exercise its discretion consistent with those provisions. Much the same view was earlier taken in the judgment of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, (37 ELT 478).
(3.)The civil appeals are, therefore, allowed. The order under appeal is set aside.
(2.)The assessee-respondent made a claim for refund of excise duty underthe provisions of the Excise Act which was beyond the permissible period thereunder. The refund claim having been rejected by the authorities, a writ petition was moved and allowed. The Revenuepreferred a writ appeal, which was dismissed. The point now is covered by thedecision of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Union of India, (89 ELT 247), where it has been held that the Court, in a writ petition, has to take note of the provisions of the Act and must exercise its discretion consistent with those provisions. Much the same view was earlier taken in the judgment of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, (37 ELT 478).
(3.)The civil appeals are, therefore, allowed. The order under appeal is set aside.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.