1975 (7) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut paying any duty on those goods for being used by the petitioner in the manufacture of Thinners. The said licence expired on December 31, 1968. It was a renewable licence and the petitioner applied for its renewal on November 9, 1968. Certificate No. C.T. 2, which was issued to the petitioner under Rule 156 by the Excise authorities, was withdrawn from the petitioner by the Excise authorities on January 10, 1969. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had to purchase certain quantities of those goods from Indian Iron and Steel Ltd. and Hindustan Steel Ltd. and had to pay them Excise duty along with the price of those goods because the petitioner's said licence was not then renewed and its said certificate was withdra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n if the duty is refunded to the petitioner; and if it is held that the duty cannot be refunded to the petitioner, an order should be made directing the Excise authorities to refund the duty to those two companies by following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in an appeal from a decree in the case of Tiloke Chand Chppra v. Ramdhandas Beharilal, reported in (1962) 66 Cal WN 441. 5. The submissions of Mr. A.K. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, are as follows : Since the duty was not realised from the petitioner, it cannot be refunded to the petitioner under the Act, if any application for refund of duty is now made by those two companies, it will be time-barred and accordingly the Excise a....