Gujarat High Court
Rallis India Ltd. vs Union Of India on 17 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(34)ECC59, 1992(61)ELT237(GUJ)
JUDGMENT P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.
1. Rule. Mr. Ajmera waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. The Special Civil Application is for quashing the order at Annexure-"L" which is at page 66 of the Special Civil Application. Even by the order at Annexure-L the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs has held as follows :
"In view of the above discussion, I hold that even though on merits freight, secondary packing, trade discount and sales tax are admissible for deduction from the assessable value, in the absence of documentary evidence for the same, it is not possible to quantify the expenses and to work out the amount of refund claims for the period for which the refund claims are within the time under Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The exact nature of the interest on book debts would have come out only on perusal of the Balance Sheet of Rallis India where reportedly these would appear and a view regarding admissibility of the same for deduction cannot be taken in the absence of relevant data."
Finally, after the aforesaid observation, the Additional Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Surat, has rejected the refund claims filed by the party at Sr. No. 1 to 5 as inadmissible and form Sr. No. 6 to 10 as unsubstantiated. It is against this order that the present special civil application has been filed.
2. It is clear from the facts of the case that the authority concerned was directed to dispose of the main matter after giving opportunity to the party concerned to be heard on or before 20th April, 1990. Even though such order was passed by the Bench much earlier on February 2, 1990 the authority concerned fixed the hearing on 12-4-1990 directing the petitioner to give all the information regarding the refund claims on or before 16-4-1990 covering the period of 12 years. As correctly stated by the petitioners herein this requires longer period for the petitioner to furnish all such particulars. It is noticed that 13th, 14th and 15th of April, 1990 were holidays and as such time granted for the purpose of furnishing such particulars seems to be unreasonable. After giving such time it is noticed, that the Additional Collector has passed an order on 20th April, 1990, in order to comply with the directions of this High Court for the purpose of finalising the claim for refund.
3. It is unnecessary for us to give various other facts except stating that the Additional Collector himself directed the party concerned who felt difficulties, in furnishing the particulars to approach the High Court for getting extension of time. As a matter of fact the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 512 of 1990 in Special Civil Application No. 8755 of 1989 to grant extension of time for finalising the petitioner's refund claim. It is the stay of the petitioner through the learned counsel Mr. S. B. Vakil that the order of the Additional Collector which is impugned in this Special Civil Application was communicated only on 26-4-1990. The Miscellaneous Civil Application was disposed of on 26-4-1990 in the presence of Mr. Ajmera who appeared for the respondents therein and who waived service of rule for the respondents, making the rule absolute. The result being that the extension of time asked for was granted by the Bench of this High Court. Nevertheless the order seems to have been passed on 20th April, 1990 which is being impugned in this Special Civil Application. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the authority concerned has given insufficient time to the petitioner for the purpose of furnishing the necessary details for the refund claims and the reasonableness of the prayer for extension of time is in a way, accepted by the Department and also by the Bench of this High Court. Thus, it is clear that the order passed in haste has deprived the petitioners from furnishing the necessary details with regard to the refund claims and that has resulted, according to the petitioner in great loss.
4. In the interest of justice and also from the facts of the case, it is but fair that the order of the Additional Collector which is impugned in this special civil application is set aside and the matter is remanded for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs which is at exhibit "L" to the Special Civil Application is set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the appropriate authority for disposal afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard on the refund claims. We further direct the petitioners to file necessary details with regard to their refund claims and all other necessary particulars to press their refund claims, on or before 10th September, 1990. We also direct the authority concerned to dispose of the said refund claims on or before 30th October, 1990.
5. We make it clear that the order dated 28th July, 1988 which is at annexure - D to this Special Civil Application is stayed. We also make it clear that if the order passed by the respondents is against the petitioner, the petitioner has right to file an appeal to the appropriate authority, both against the order in respect of his refund claims and also in respect of the order passed on 28th July, 1988 which is annexure - D to this Special Civil Application. In case the appeals are filed within one month after the orders are passed on the refund claims and communicated to the petitioner, the appeals shall be treated as having been filed within time without raising the plea of limitation, both for the order dated 28th July, 1988, and for the order in the refund claims and the matter will be decided on merits in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid directions and orders the Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.