1989 (3) TMI 133 - HC - Central Excise

Court Rejects Refund Claim for Duty Paid in Error, Allows Refund Under Indian Contract Act

The court upheld the rejection of a refund claim for duty paid under a mistake of law due to the limitation period under Rule 11 of the Central Excise ... Limitation period - Central Excise officer - Powers of - Refund Issues:Challenge to order allowing refund for a specific period, limitation period for refund claims, interpretation of exemption notifications, authority to grant refund, mistake of law in payment, unjust enrichment claim.Analysis:1. The petitioners, manufacturers of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, challenged an order allowing refund for a specific period while rejecting refund for another period based on limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The claim for refund was based on payment under a mistake of law.2. The petitioners claimed ignorance of exemption notifications and paid duty on their turnover. They later realized their entitlement to exemptions under the notifications issued. The claim for refund was made within six months of discovering the notifications but was rejected based on the limitation period.3. The judgment referred to previous decisions holding that authorities like the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) are bound by the limitation period provided in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, making their decisions unassailable.4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the refund application was within the limitation period based on a Kerala High Court case. However, the judgment clarified that the exemption notifications in this case were distinct and the limitation period started from the date of duty payment for goods within the exemption limit.5. The court highlighted that even though the authorities lacked power to grant refunds or condone delays, the court could order refunds in cases of payment under a mistake of law. Citing a previous case, it stated that the limitation period for such refunds did not apply, and the department had no authority to recover duty paid under a mistake of law.6. The court further emphasized that duty paid without authority of law could be demanded back by the taxpayer at any stage, and the limitation period did not apply in such cases. The petitioners were found liable for a refund under the Indian Contract Act due to the payment being made under a mistake.7. An argument was raised regarding unjust enrichment if a refund was granted, as the burden of duty might have been passed on to consumers. The court noted that the issue of unjust enrichment was referred to a Full Bench for consideration, and the petition would abide by the result of that decision.8. The court directed both parties to file affidavits on the issue of unjust enrichment and postponed further orders on the petition until the Full Bench's decision on a related petition.