1982 (9) TMI 68 - HC - Central Excise

High Court Mandamus: Refund of Duties for Machine-Glazed Paper

STRAW PRODUCTS LIMITED Versus FACTORY OFFICER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS

STRAW PRODUCTS LIMITED Versus FACTORY OFFICER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 70 (Orissa) Issues:1. Classification of poster paper for duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Approval of revised classification list and refund claim by the authorities.3. Interpretation of item 17(2) of the First Schedule in relation to poster paper duty liability.4. Legal recourse for refund of duty paid under mistake.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a public limited company, sought clarification on the duty classification of machine-glazed poster paper under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Initially, the petitioner paid duty under item 17(2) until discovering a Gujarat High Court decision indicating exemption for poster paper. The petitioner submitted a revised classification list and refund claim, which were not approved by the authorities, leading to a writ application filed in April 1982.2. The petitioner requested the approval of the revised classification list and refund of erroneously paid duties totaling a significant amount. Despite the petitioner's contentions based on the Gujarat High Court decision, the authorities returned the classification list and refund application. The petitioner's appeal for stay of duty payment was partially granted by the Appellate Collector, directing the approval of the classification list and refund claim.3. The petitioner argued that poster paper fell outside item 17(2) of the First Schedule, supported by the Gujarat High Court decision's interpretation of similar provisions. The High Court suggested implementing the Appellate Collector's order before examining the classification list and refund claim. The Court noted the need for statutory authority to determine the liability and potential refund, emphasizing the authority's duty to fairly adjudicate the matter.4. The High Court decided to issue a writ of mandamus to the concerned authority to resolve the classification list acceptance and refund claim within three months, emphasizing the petitioner's right to be heard and establish its claim. The Court highlighted the importance of fair decision-making, absence of estoppel in mistaken payments, and the State's obligation to refund amounts not due under the law. The delay in compliance with appellate directions led to the petitioner being awarded costs for the proceeding.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the duty classification of poster paper, the approval of revised lists and refund claims, statutory interpretation, and the legal recourse available for refund of mistakenly paid duties.