1993 (12) TMI 70 - HC - Central Excise

Court orders reevaluation of excise duty rebate claim, emphasizing compliance with directions.

GANGESHWAR LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order denying the excise duty rebate and directing the Supdt., Central Excise to reevaluate the ... Refund claim Issues:1. Claim for excise duty rebate based on excess sugar production.2. Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 146/74/F. No. 14/22/74/CX I dated 12-10-1974.3. Rejection of revised claim for excise duty rebate.4. Compliance with court directions by the Supdt., Central Excise.5. Justification of denial of rebate based on unjust enrichment.6. Legal remedy sought through a writ petition.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, a sugar manufacturing company, claimed excise duty rebate amounting to Rs. 25,90,952.36 P based on excess sugar production during a specific period. Initially, the claim was sanctioned, but a revised claim of Rs. 14,96,071.32 P was later rejected due to an alleged wrong interpretation of the exemption Notification. This led to a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 644 of 1980) challenging the rejection of the revised claim.2. The High Court directed the Supdt., Central Excise to reconsider the petitioner's application in line with the court's interpretation of the exemption Notification. However, in a subsequent order dated 17-1-1992, the Supdt., Central Excise of Roorkee held that no further rebate was due to the petitioner, stating that the amount already sanctioned and paid was final. The court noted that the Supdt., Central Excise failed to follow the court's directions by not calculating the average production of the preceding five years and determining the rebate accordingly as per the Notification.3. The respondents attempted to justify the denial of the rebate by claiming it would result in unjust enrichment, citing amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the court found this justification unsubstantiated in the impugned order and emphasized that the Supdt., Central Excise must adhere to the court's directions in calculating the rebate entitlement based on the Notification's clauses.4. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and quashing the order dated 17-1-1992. The Supdt., Central Excise was directed to reevaluate the petitioner's claim in accordance with the court's previous directions and observations.5. Considering the prolonged pendency of the matter since 1992, the court instructed the Supdt., Central Excise to resolve the case within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the court's order. No costs were awarded in this judgment, emphasizing the need for timely resolution and compliance with legal directives.