TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (8) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff Item 34A but under the residual Tariff Item 68. 2. The petitioners contend that the agricultural implements manufactured by them are accessories of agricultural tractors and are therefore covered by Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 at the relevant time, prior to its amendment in 1979. 3. Tariff Item 34 deals with Motor Vehicles and Tractors. Sub-item II of Tariff Item 34 deals with tractors including agricultural tractors. Tariff Item 34A at the relevant time was as follows :- "Item No. Description of Goods Rate of duty 34A PARTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRACTORS INCLUDING TRAILERS Parts and accessories, not elsewhere Twenty per cent ad valorem. specified of Motor Vehicles and Tractors, including Trailers Explanation I : The expression 'Motor Vehicles' has the meaning assigned to it in Item No. 34. Explanation II : The expression "Tractors" shall include agricultural tractors. Explanation II of Tariff Item 34A makes it clear that agricultural tractors are included in the expression "Tractors" in Tariff Item 34A. Under this item parts and accessories, inter alia, of agricu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricultural tractors in agricultural operations. They can therefore be considered as accessories of agricultural tractors. Mr. Setalvad for the petitioners drew my attention to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sales Tax Commissioner v. Lachman Singh reported in 1972 (36) S.T.C. 372 where an oil-can and steel files were considered as accessories of a chaff-cutter. It is not necessary to go so far in the present case. The implements are designed for use with an agricultural tractor and they add to the effectiveness of agricultural tractors. They can therefore be considered as accessories of agricultural tractors. 7. My attention was drawn to a notification issued in respect of items covered by Tariff Item 68. Tariff Item 68 is the residuary item which includes all other goods not elsewhere specified (but excluding certain items set out therein). Under a notification dated 1st March 1975 and amended from time to time certain goods are excluded from the whole of the duty of excise leviable under Item No. 68. The notification contains a schedule of items so exempted from the payment of the whole of the duty of excise. Item No. 11 in this notification is as follows :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that agricultural implements are designed to be used with agricultural tractors and agricultural tractors can be effectively used only when agricultural implements are used with such tractors. Such implements must, therefore, be considered as accessories of agricultural tractors. 9. After 1979, Tariff Item 34A is amended. It now enumerates the particular accessories (inter alia) of tractors which are covered by Tariff Item 34A. Agricultural implements used with agricultural tractors are not so enu- merated. Therefore, after 1979 such implements are not covered by Tariff Item 34A. For the relevant period, however, the petitioners are entitled to obtain a refund of the duly paid in excess of the duty prescribed under Tariff Item 34A. 10. In the present case, Mr. Sethna learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any refund because, for the period in question, they have sold agricultural implements to various customers from whom they must have charged prices which covered the extra excise duty paid. To refund the amount to the petitioners now would amount to their unjust enrichment. This submission cannot be accepted at all. The respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copy of some judgment. 12. In any case, it is difficult to invoke this doctrine in the present case. The petitioners had paid duty from 1st March, 1975. On 27th October, 1976 they applied for a refund for the earlier year. Under Central Excise Rule 11 read with rule 173J which was then in force, the petitioners were entitled to apply for refund of duty erroneously paid for a period of one year. The petitioners, were, therefore, entitled to apply for refund of duty paid from 26th October, 1975 till 27th October, 1976. 13. The application of the petitioners was rejected by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 1st June, 1977. The petitioners filed an appeal dated 23rd August, 1977 which was dismissed by the Appellate Collector on 24th July, 1978. Thereafter the present petition has been filed on 18th January, 1979. In these circumstances the petitioners had applied for a refund of duty as from 27th October, 1975 within the prescribed time. They cannot be denied the benefit of refund applied for by them within time on the ground of "unjust enrichment". 14. For the period from 1st of March, 1975 to 26th October, 1975, the petitioners claim to have paid duty under a mistake. Thi....