TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the proper officer was bound to act upon the fresh price list filed by the assessee under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules; and (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled in writ jurisdiction to a refund of excise duty alleged to have been illegally collected.
Issue (i): whether the proper officer was bound to act upon the fresh price list filed by the assessee under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: Rule 173C permits an assessee to file a fresh price list or amendment where alteration becomes necessary, and on receipt of such fresh list the proper officer is required to consider it and approve it with such modification as may be necessary to bring the declared value in line with section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The record showed that no order had been passed on the fresh list filed by the petitioners, even though the officer was obliged to proceed under sub-rule (3). The failure to do so amounted to non-performance of a statutory duty.
Conclusion: The petitioners succeeded on this issue and the respondents were bound to take action on the fresh price list in accordance with law.
Issue (ii): whether the petitioners were entitled in writ jurisdiction to a refund of excise duty alleged to have been illegally collected.
Analysis: Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides a specific statutory procedure for refund of excise duty. The Court declined to express any view on the merits of the duty dispute and held that, where the statute prescribes a remedy for refund, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked for that relief.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to refund or any other relief on this aspect in the writ petition.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed only to the limited extent of requiring consideration of the revised price list, while the claim for refund and the remaining substantive reliefs were declined as governed by the statutory scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: When a statute creates a specific procedure for assessment or refund, the writ court will not ordinarily bypass that mechanism, and a statutory authority must perform its duty to consider a duly filed fresh price list.
TaxTMI 
