1987 (12) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-company for a period from 4th May 1977 to 3rd of May 1980, on the ground that there was an apparent mistake in classification of goods. It is not necessary to consider the various contentions raised before us in that behalf, in view of the decision of this Court in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 556 (Bom.) - 1987 Mah. L.J. 900 - R. Parthasarathy, Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan Dn. & another v. Dipsi Chemicals Private Ltd. & another. After making detailed reference to the various decisions in the field this is what the Division Bench has observed in paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment :- "17. It has also been brought to our notice by Mr. Taraporwalla, appearing for the respondents, that another Division Bench of this Court (Bharucha and Ti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot see how the person or the authority which has collected duty without the authority of law can contend that the amount will not be refunded to the person from whom the same is collected. It is not as if that the person who has collected from his customers and paid it to the State nas done so willingly. He has paid the amount of excise duty to the State because he is under a compulsion to do so. If he refuses, penal consequences would follow. It is, therefore, unintelligible as to how the State can contend that though it has collected the duty illegally or without the authority of law, it will not refund the same to the person, from whom it has collected and who has paid under the compulsion of law, on the ground that the amount, if r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugh mistake and was also approved accordingly as per the assessee's declaration and duty was paid under that tariff item during the relevant period. The assessee came to know about the mistake in classification and thereupon revised the classification list declaring the product as classifiable under Tariff Item 33B(ii). The revised classification list was approved after getting a test report from the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay. It is not therefore, disputed fact that there was a mistake of the assessee while getting approved the classification list in the earlier period...." Thus it is quite obvious that there was a mistake on both sides and the mistake was obviously relating to the classification itself which could safely be termed as....