1980 (12) TMI 186 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Court grants refund to acrylic manufacturers for duty paid under wrong classification.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, the manufacturers of acrylic tops, in their refund claim for duty paid under the wrong classification. The ... - Issues: Classification of goods for duty payment, application of Central Excise Rules vs. Limitation Act for refund claimClassification of Goods for Duty Payment:The petitioners, manufacturers of acrylic tops, initially paid duty under Tariff Item No. 68 but later realized that the correct classification was under Tariff Item 18. They filed a refund claim for the duty paid under the wrong classification. The Asstt. Collector allowed a partial refund, citing the time limit under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners argued that the duty was paid under a mistake of law, not a misconstruction, and thus, the Indian Limitation Act should apply to their refund claim. They contended that both they and the Central Excise Officers believed the goods fell under Item 68. The Appellate Collector upheld the Asstt. Collector's decision. The petitioners maintained that the duty was paid under a mistake of law, and the correct classification was only known after a clarification from the Central Board of Excise & Customs.Application of Central Excise Rules vs. Limitation Act for Refund Claim:The petitioners argued that the duty on acrylic tops was paid under a mistake of law, entitling them to a refund beyond the time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Rules. They provided evidence to support their claim, including classification lists, a show cause notice, and an order vacating a demand for duty under Tariff Item 68. The Government acknowledged that the acrylic tops were mistakenly charged duty under Item 68 instead of the correct classification under Item 18. They noted that collecting duty twice on the same goods was unjust, as the acrylic fiber used in the tops had already borne duty under Item 18. Consequently, the Government set aside the order-in-appeal and allowed the revision application, granting relief to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act.