- (1.) THESE petitioners have come to this Court for a direction upon the respondents to make refund of the excess excise duty paid upon the Indian made foreign liquor and other brands of liquor pursuant to the reduction of excise duty by Notification dated 29.6.2004 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
(2.) THESE petitioners claimed to be wholesale, sale to trade licensee, have obtained such licence from the Excise Department. Their contention is that they had purchased the various brands of liquor including Indian made foreign liquor at the pre-revised rates from the wholesale dealer having licence under Form 19C. These petitioners have come forward with a common case that the State of Jharkhand has revised the rate of excise duty vide Departmental Circular No.280 dated 21st February,2004, whereby the excise duty on Indian made foreign liquor and spice country made liquor had been revised. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision was communicated vide letter dated 29th June,2004 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand to all the Assistant commissioners, Excise and all Excise Superintendents requesting them to certify the position of the existing stock as on 30th June,2004 so that the difference of amount due to the revision in the rate can be adjusted. According to the petitioners, the rate of excise duty of Indian made foreign liquor has been substantially reduced and fixed for the ordinary category at Rs.10.00 per LPL, for the medium category at Rs.20.00 per LPL and Rs.30.00 per LPL for the premium category. Similarly the rate of excise duty on beer for different qualities has also been revised, vide Memo dated 30th June,2004. It is the contention of these petitioners that the stock existing as on Ist July,2004 after coming into effect of the revised rate from 29th June,2004 were subsequently verified by the authorities of the respondent-Excise Department themselves and different stocks were found to be existing, over which they have already paid excise duty at the pre-revised rate. Under these circumstances, these petitioners have claimed refund of the difference of the excise duty paid in excess after coming into force of the revised rate from Ist July,2004. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, passed in WPC No.2812/2006, vide judgment dated 13th November,2006, which has further been affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No.228/2007 and has not been interfered with even by the Apex Court on Appeal by the State of Jharkhand. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted on the part of the petitioners that under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, any levy of duty without authority of law is prohibited. In view of reduction of duty, levying of excess amount and its collection, therefore, becomes unauthorized and without authority of law and the respondents are bound to refund the excess amount on the stocks available with the petitioners as on 30th June,2004.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have appeared and filed their counter affidavit.;