- (1.) THE short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent No. 1, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Ghaziabad is entitled to debit the account of the petitioner to the extent of a sum of Rs. 3,83,836.80 out of the amount due to the petitioner by way of refund even after the demand was set aside by the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 24 -9 -1985 and further on the basis of a show cause notice issued by respondent No. 1 dated 14 -10 -1985.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ravi, S. Dhavan, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, on behalf of respondents. Since the petition raises a pure question of law and does not involve any disputed question of fact we proceed to decide this writ petition at the admission stage by the consent of parties in accordance with the provisions of chapter XXII, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. It manufactures polyester staple fibre at its factory in Ghaziabad. During the course of manufacture of the aforesaid fibre there is a By -product known as methanol. The petitioner sells the methanol in the market. Since an ad valorem excise duty was levied on methanol with effect from 17th March, 1985, the petitioner had to submit the price of methanol for approval to respondent No. 1. A price list dated 19th March, 1985 showing the price of methanol at Rs. 3050 per metric tonne was submitted. The price list was approved on 18th July, 1985. In August, 1985 the respondent No. 1 sent a communication to the petitioner that the price of methanol quoted by Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizer Limited, Bombay was shown at Rs. 5941 per m.t. in road tankers and Rs. 6441 per m.t. in customers' own barrels and hence the price of methanol for the petitioner was approved for the aforesaid rates. The respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Central Excise, Range I, Division III, Ghaziabad gave a notice to the petitioner on 21st August, 1985 calling upon the petitioner to debit the differential duty of Rs. 3,83,836.80 in the personal ledger account within a week. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3 Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The respondent No. 3 allowed the appeal by an order dated the 24th September, 1985 and set aside the order dated the 19th August, 1985 passed by the respondent No. 1 and remanded the case to the latter for a de novo decision after complying with the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE petitioner's case is that although the order dated 19th August, 1985 passed by the respondent No. 1 had been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in appeal the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 3 -10 -1985 adjusted the a sum of Rs. 3,83,836.80 from out of the refund claim of Rs. 47,79,977.80 due to the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter prayed to the respondent No. 1 to refund the' aforesaid sum by crediting the same in the personal ledger account of the petitioner. The amount was not refunded and on the contrary the respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated the 14th October, 1985 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the price of methanol be not fixed at the rate of Rs. 5941 per m.t. in road tankers and Rs. 6441 per m.t. in customers' own barrels and the sum of Rs. 3,83,836.80 being the differential duty on the methanol be not recovered. The petitioner had thereafter made another request for the refund of the aforesaid amount in pursuance of the order of the Collector (Appeals) and had also asked for some further time to file a reply. The petitioner's grievance is at the Collector (Appeals) having allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, the amount of Rs. 3,83,836.80 could not be debited in the personal ledger account of the petitioner with the Collector of Central Excise and the non -refunding of the said amount is contrary to law and causing irreparable harm to the petitioner.;