TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication No. 55 of 1975, dated March 1, 1975 and whether the respondent is entitled to refund of the excess duty paid by him pending the decision of the High Court. The Assistant Collector took the view that malt and malt extract cannot be treated as food products and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the said Notification. On a writ petition being filed, the Delhi High Court upheld the respondent's plea and also held that it is entitled to the benefit of the said Exemption Notification. On the second issue, the Delhi High Court has overruled the Revenue's plea based on the theory of unjust enrichment. When this appeal came up for hearing on an earlier date, we held that the High Court was right in saying that malt and malt extract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....malt and malt extract fall under two categories, (i) industries engaged in the manufacture of beverages, like Bournvita and Horlicks etc. and (ii) the breweries and distilleries engaged in manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquors. One of the category (i) industries is H.M.M. Limited, not known as Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Health Care Limited, respondent in the connected appeal. Like other purchasers in category (i), H.M.M. Limited took proforma credit of the duty paid by it on the purchase of malt/malt extract in terms of Notification No. 201 of 1979, which was in force at the relevant time. Other purchasers in category (i) also did the same. [So far as category (ii) purchasers, i.e., distilleries and breweries are concerned, Sri Salve ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire duty to H.M.M. Limited and other similar purchasers (who have availed of the proforma credit). There are only three purchasers in the first category. As a matter of fact, out of the sum of Rs. 2,41,53, 497.92p., Barmalt has already refunded an amount of Rs. 1,28,87,580.34p. to H.M.M. Limited and other similar purchasers. (The payment to H.M.M. Limited is stated to be in the sum of Rupees eight lakhs.) Barmalt will pay over the rest of the amount (received by them by way of refund) to the respective purchasers. Even the amount of Rs. 25,47,485.24p. will also be paid over to the respective purchasers as soon as it is received from the Revenue. In this manner, Barmalt would have paid over the entire amount received by them by way of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d exclusively from Barmalt. They have purchased from all the three producers. The other purchasers are not before us. Only the H.M.M. Limited is before us. It is the respondent in connected appeal, viz., Civil Appeal Nos. 3387-88 of 1992. An undertaking has been filed on behalf of H.M.M. Limited stating that they are agreeable to the said formula provided the formula is applied uniformly to other two producers viz., Malt Company of India Limited and A.K. Malt (Private) Limited also. Sri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel of the H.M.M. Limited, no doubt stated that if this formula is applied and implemented uniformly, H.M.M. Limited would be prepared to reverse the proforma credit equal to the amount received by them from the said three produc....