1992 (11) TMI 103 - HC - Central Excise

Court partially grants writ petition, orders refund under notifications. Costs imposed, counsel to receive certified copy.

The court partly allowed the writ petition, directing the refund of the balance amount claimed under two notifications. Costs were imposed on the parties, ... Writ jurisdiction Issues:1. Petitioner seeking refund balance amount under two notifications.2. Allegation of respondent not disposing of refund claim promptly.3. Dispute over procedure followed for rebate claims.4. Denial of allegations in rejoinder affidavit.5. Petitioner's remedy for appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.6. Dispute over attestation of test memo for rebate claim.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of the balance amount under two notifications, claiming eligibility for a total refund amount. While a portion had been refunded, the petitioner insisted on the balance. The respondent's delay in disposing of the claim was challenged, citing financial losses incurred due to the pending refund.2. The counter-affidavit by the respondents detailed the petitioner's rebate claims under the notifications. It highlighted discrepancies in the procedure followed by the petitioner, leading to a review based on the last come, first go principle. The counter-affidavit clarified the status of the rebate claims and the need for the petitioner to provide further details for a comprehensive assessment.3. The petitioner, through a rejoinder affidavit, contested the allegations regarding procedural lapses. The court clarified that the focus was not on the merits of the order passed but on the pending issues. The availability of an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was emphasized for addressing grievances on the refund orders.4. Disputes arose over the attestation of the test memo for the rebate claim. The petitioner claimed to have submitted the required document, duly attested, while the respondents contended otherwise. The court directed the resolution of this issue within a specified timeframe, subject to the submission of a certified copy of the court's order.5. Ultimately, the writ petition was partly allowed, with costs imposed on the parties. The court instructed the supply of a certified copy of the order to the learned counsel within a stipulated timeframe upon payment of charges, concluding the judgment.