TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... printing/writing paper. The Central Excise authorities collected duties on the goods manufactured by it under tariff Item l74 and such duties were paid by the petitioner under protest. 2. The petitioner company preferred appeals to the appellate authorities. The appellate proceedings contained for a long time. The matters went upto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the Collector for deciding afresh on 3rd May 1968. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise decided 32 appeals pending before him for different periods and against different orders by an order dated 30th November, 1973 in favour of the petitioner company. These appellate orders of the Appellate Collector was reviewed by the Government of India a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment, no refund of the said duty could be claimed by the company. If any customer of the company from whom excise duty had been collected came with a claim of refund on the ground of any duty unlawfully collected by the company, a question of refund might have arisen. But in this case, if any refund is granted to the company, it will accrue to them "as fortuitous benefit because this benefit cannot be passed on to the actual consumers of the goods who have already accepted the burden of taxation." 7. The claim for refund, therefore, was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Sambalpure. 8. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise in both the orders dated 9th June, 1980 and 10th July, 1980 had set aside the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty will not be refunded to the petitioner company in any event. The question in the appeal was whether the classification was wrongly made and duty was wrongly realised from the petitioner company. If the classification was wrong and the duty was unlawfully realised, the respondents had to refund the duty which was unlawfully realised. The Excise Authority cannot be permitted to retain any amount of tax which has been unlawfully gathered from a tax payer. 10. There is also another aspect of the case. It has been argued that if the refund application is allowed, there will be unlawful enrichment on the part of the petitioner company. I fail to appreciate this argument. It excise duty has been unlawfully realised from the petitioner and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e if realised by the State should be refunded. Such fiscal administration alone ensures the atmosphere of tax compliance." 12. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khardah Company Limited, v. Union of India, 1983 E.L.T. 2159 where it was held that where excise duty was collected under compulsion, the assessee had a right to get the refund of duty after the appellate authority had held that excessive realisation has been made. It was observed in that case that the claim of refund of any amount realised under any authority of law was enforceable in law unless it was barred by any specific statutory provisions. 13. In the instant case, excise duty was realised from the company under compulsion of law ....