High Court grants Sugar Mill refund on excise duty; quashes show cause notice for repayment

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a Sugar Mill seeking a refund of excise duty paid on stored molasses. Despite the court order for refund, the respondent department issued a show cause notice demanding repayment. The court quashed the notice, emphasizing compliance with its order. If the department succeeded in their appeal, they were to act as per the Division Bench's decision. No costs were awarded, and the related petition was closed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the case are the refund of excise duty paid on stored molasses, the rejection of refund by the adjudicating authority, subsequent appeals filed by the petitioner, issuance of a show cause notice for refund, and the challenge to the show cause notice based on a previous court order.

Refund of excise duty on stored molasses:
The petitioner, a Sugar Mill, had paid excise duty for storing molasses in an open pit. Subsequently, the petitioner sought permission to destroy the stored molasses and then claimed a refund of the excise duty paid. The refund claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Tanjore, and the appellate authorities upheld this decision. However, the High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondents to refund the excise duty paid.

Challenge to show cause notice for refund:
Despite the court order directing the refund of excise duty, the respondent department issued a show cause notice demanding the refund amount paid to the petitioner. The court noted that the respondent department had filed a writ appeal against the previous court order but as of the current date, the appeal was still at the stage of scrutiny and had not been numbered. The court found the show cause notice to be contrary to its previous order directing the refund.

Court decision and conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned show cause notice and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It was emphasized that if the respondent department succeeded in their writ appeal, they could proceed in accordance with the order of the Division Bench. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---