TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apse of more than eleven and a half years. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner is a manufacturer of corrugated boxes with a factory located at J-1296, Rampur Mundana, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). A team of the Anti-Evasion Wing of the erstwhile Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I, visited the factory for investigation. On the basis of records seized, statements recorded from the proprietor, and investigation done, it was found that petitioner was incorrectly claiming the small-scale exemption for up to a turnover of Rs. 1.50 crore, by not including the turnover of its Delhi unit and another unit named Unipack Solutions Chopanki, Bhiwadi, which had no manufacturing facility at all. The investigating team asked petitioner to deposit the Central Excise duty of around Rs. 30 lakhs, as the combined turnover exceeded the threshold of Rs. 1.50 crore for exemption. Thus, petitioner was compelled to deposit the alleged Central Excise duty, and petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 26,10,164/- through the following challans:- Challan Dated Duty Deposited (Rs.) 05.02.2013 Rs. 5,00,000/- 12.02.2013 Rs. 8,96,296/- 05.03.2013 Rs. 11,04,670/- 25.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scellaneous order No.MO/50889/2019-Ex[DB] dated 28th November 2019. Pursuant to the same, petitioner submitted their grievance before the learned Additional Commissioner, who passed a detailed order-in-original No. ALW-EXCUS-Addl-Addl.Commr. 09/2024-25 on 10th June 2024, whereby, after eliminating the stock transfers of finished goods from Delhi unit and outright purchase of finished goods by the Bhiwadi unit, being trading turnover, determined, inter alia, the excise duty liability to be only Rs. 17,34,703/-, as against the amount already deposited, i.e. Rs. 26,10,164/-, and also reduced the proportionate interest and penalty. v) Pursuant to the learned Tribunal's order dated 10th June 2024, petitioner applied, vide letter dated 03rd July 2024 (received by Respondent No. 2 on 08th July 2024), before respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner, CGST for refund of excess excise duty, interest and penalty deposited by petitioner in the year 2013, and further for demanding interest to be paid by respondent on the excess excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,75,461/-. 7. Respondent No. 1-Additional Commissioner, CGST, then issued a show cause notice No. (V) (Ref) 235/Ref Unipack/Div-D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admissible to petitioner. He further submits that petitioner applied for refund of the excess excise duty vide application dated 08th July 2024, whereby petitioner has merely prayed for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. whereas, in the writ petition has prayed for interest at the rate of 12% p.a., and accordingly prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 12. This Court, while dealing with the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petition, finds that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition is not sustainable. Petitioner's contention was upheld after a chequered history of litigation. Having deposited the excess amount of excise duty back in 2013, and after numerous rounds of litigation, he finally succeeded on 10th June 2024. Furthermore, his prayer for a refund was partly allowed vide order dated 07th October 2024, wherein interest on the excess excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,57,461/-, was allegedly declined arbitrarily and contrary to various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, relegating petitioner to the windmill of statutory appeals by filing an appeal before the Joint Commissioner will merely add on to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgement in the case of UOI vs ITC Ltd. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) observed that- Writ jurisdiction - Refund -Limitation - Duty collected without authority of law - Bar of limitation as provided for in Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 not applicable when assessee not guilty of any laches in claiming refund - Article 226 of Constitution of India. - It has been settled by this Court that where excess duty was not payable by the party under the provisions of a statute but had in fact been paid under a mistake of law, the party has a right to recover it and there is a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the Government to refund the excess duty so collected because the collection in such cases would be without the authority of law. The payment and recovery of excess excise duty was thus on account of a mutual mistake. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was perfectly justified in holding that the bar of limitation which had been put against the respondent by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of that void act to the State. The State is in unlawful possession of the taxpayer's property. The State cannot retain it on any equitable ground nor can it give it to any other person out of any supposed equitable consideration. The constitutional mandate cannot be ignored on the pretext of any rule of equity or on the ground of what is perceived as substantive justice " 16. Apart from the above, in Redihot Electricals (supra), with which we respectfully agree, it was held as under: "13. ......It is a clear case of unjust recovery and illegal retention of the hard-earned money of the private undertaking and or of the little persons having meagre income, Krishna Aiyer, J. speaking for the Court in M/s. Shiv Shankar Dal Mills and others Vs. State of Haryana and others MANU/SC/0032/1979 : [1980] 1 SCR 1170 under similar circumstances observed: "Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's money. later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation there is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. Nor it is palatable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 214 of the Act, 1961 made by the petitioner whether there was gross delay on the part of the revenue ranging from 12 to 17 years held that, there is no question of the delay being 'justifiable' as is argued and in any event if the revenue takes an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the withholding of monies is 'justifiable' or 'not wrongful'. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue that, this Act provided for payment of compensation for delayed payment of amounts due to an assessee in a case where these amounts include interest? It is held that, the Act recognizes the principle that a person should only be taxed in accordance with law and hence where excess amounts of tax are collected from an assessee or any amounts are wrongfully withheld from an assessee without authority of law the revenue must compensate the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter directed the revenue to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date it became payable till the date it was actually paid holding the revenue solely responsible for the delayed payment. 36. In our view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a....