Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. The petitioner was granted permission for storage of non -duty paid sugar in godowns situated outside the factory premises on account of paucity of storage space in the factory premises. This permission was granted subject to payment of supervision charges. The respondents issued a letter dated 7 -11 -2002 directing the petitioner to pay supervision charges @ Rs. 21,532/ - per month. The petitioner hired a godown for the period 12 -2 -2002 to 22 -2 -2003 and, on the basis of the supervision charges as indicated by letter dated 7 -11 -2002, the petitioner alleges that he paid the entire amount of Rs. 10,22,731/ - under protest and thereafter stored the sugar in the said godown and, from time to time, the sugar was stored or cleared under the supervision of the excise authorities. According to the petitioner, the storage and clearance of sugar was done on 64 days under the supervision of the excise authorities and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 49,216/ - as supervision charges. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for a refund of Rs. 9,73,515/ -. This claim for refund was rejected against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was rejected by an order dated 17 -7 -2008 holding that the appeal was not maintainable and that the petitioner should approach the administrative authority. The petitioner, thereafter filed a fresh application before the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax, Division Saharanpur, which was again rejected by an order dated 16 -7 -2012. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition praying for its quashing and for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excess amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest.
(2.) In this backdrop, we have heard Sri A.P. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K.S. Raghuvansi, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) The excise duty is leviable at the time of removal of the goods. Rule 47(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") permitted the manufacturer to store goods in exceptional circumstances without payment of duty on account of shortage of storage space at the premises of the manufacturer subject to certain conditions imposed by the authority. Under this Rule, in case of excess stock and shortage of storage place, the authorities were permitting the manufacturers to store non -duty goods outside their factory premises on deposit of bonds, etc. Subsequently this facility was withdrawn and representations were made by the manufacturers which led to the issuance of a circular dated 1 -1 -2002 wherein it was decided that in view of Rule 47(5) of the Rules, the facility of non -duty paid goods outside the factory premises without payment of duty would be made available to the manufacturers subject to adequate revenue safeguard.;