TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch other writ, direction or order calling upon the respondents to give the petitioner their dues; (d) allow the costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; (e) grant the petitioner such other and further reliefs as they may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the cases." 2. The petitioner herein is a manufacturer and supplier of air conditioning plants and refrigerating equipments. Pursuant to orders placed by National Dairy Development Board, Anand (Gujarat) and Indian Dairy Corporation, Baroda, the petitioner had supplied air conditioning plants all over India. Some of these projects were financed by International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)/International Development Association (IDA). These supplies were made at international prices under international competitive bidding for World Bank projects. 3. The petitioner claims that they became entitled to refunds/cash assistance in terms of the policy of the respondents incorporated in letter No.F.1/2/69-EAC dated 7th January, 1970 concerning cash assistance in lieu of excise duty payable on supplies made under IBRD/IDA projects in India. 4. The petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce amount of Rs.69 lacs in monthly instalments of Rs.10 lacs each commencing from the first day of April, 1983. The petitioner had already paid Rs.10 lacs vide letter dated 19th July, 1982 to the excise authorities. 6. After the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the petitioner once again revived their request for payment of supplementary cash assistance by writing letters between the period 1983 to 1984. It would be appropriate to reproduce one such letter dated 22nd September, 1983, which has been filed along with the rejoinder affidavit:- "September 22, 1983 The Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports CLA, IP Estate New Delhi Subject: Refund of excise duty against supplies made to IDA/IBRD Project by way of supplementary cash assistance. File No: A-31/JM'80/EP/IDA/CLA. Dear Sir, With reference to the above, the refund of excise duty was pending with your office due to the fact that the equipment supplied by us to the various projects were cleared against bank guarantees. We had filed a case against Central Excise Department at Faridabad on the rate of duty and we finally lost the case in the Supreme Court. We have now paid the excise duty in cash through PL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made claim of excise duty after such a long time. Therefore, your request for refund of Excise Duty received in this office on 29.-9-1983 is time barred." 9. Similar reasons were given/recorded for rejection of other applications for grant of "supplementary cash assistance". These letters of rejection mention that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal as per the terms of the Hand Book of Imports & Exports Procedure, 1984-85. The petitioner had filed appeals raising the following grounds:- "The original equipment was cleared from our factory against bank guarantees in favour of the Central Excise Department, Faridabad due to a dispute between us and the Central Excise Department over the levy of excise duty on complete refrigeration equipment. We had taken up the matter in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court and finally lost the case and hence in lieu of the Bank Guarantee we had paid excise duty in cash. This matter was explained to you vide our letter dated 24th September, 1983 alongwith certificate from the Central Excise Department stating that we have now paid excise duty in cash in lieu of bank guarantee which was delivered to your office vide your receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 608 it has been observed that no time limit or limitation period has been prescribed under the Constitution, but over a period of time the Superior Courts have evolved several rules of self-imposed restraint including writ Court may not enquire into belated or stale claims and would deny relief to a person who is found guilty of laches. The underlying principle of this rule is that, the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of constitutional, legal or other right, cannot be allowed to press belated claims. But no straightjacket formula can be applied. Delay and laches may not be a ground to dismiss and throw out an illiterate litigant or a person belonging to marginalized section who is dependent upon a third person to defend his fundamental rights. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited (supra) was a case under the Land Acquisition Act. In the said decision reference was made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598. In the said case the appellant before the Supreme Court had offer....