1990 (12) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plants like that of the petitioner-company. Consequently, the petitioner became liable to duty at Rs. 100/- per metric ton on and from 9-4-1979. It transpires that on 8-4-1979 the petitioner had a closing stock of 628.187 metric ton of steel ingots. Though the said quantity of steel ingots did not attract duty because Notification No. 156/79 came into effect from 9-4-1979, it is stated that as required by the Superintendent of Excise, the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 65,868.11 as duty for the stock remaining on 8-4-1979. The petitioner, thereupon, made a claim for refund of the said amount. By an order dated 10-8-1981, the first respondent rejected the claim as the same was barred by limitation under Rule 11 read with Section 11B of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner-company can seek remedy before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on the basis of the said order of the High Court, Karnataka. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that the claim for refund under the Act is, no doubt, barred by limitation. But the fact remains that the collection of duty is totally illegal. This is all the more so because the Government have subsequently issued a clarification that the stock of steel ingots manufactured prior to 9-4-1979 are eligible for full exemption. It is contended that at least from the date of the Government's classification in October, 1980, it must be deemed that the collection of duty is illegal and, there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax and in such a suit it was open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It appears that Sec. 23 of the Act deals with refund. In the facts of this case, the case did not come within Sec. 23 of the Act. But in the instant appeal, it is clear as the High Court found in our opinion rightly that the claim for refund was a consequential relief." 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India [1981 (8) E.L.T. 478 (Mad.)]. The following passage is....