Page 144 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

30 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 30 (All.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Bharati Sapru and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, JJ.
HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Tax No. 147 of 2018, decided on 17-12-2019
Demand - Recovery proceedings against refund - Refund granted upon
finalization of provisional assessment, there being no unjust enrichment - No
appeal being filed challenging the said adjudication which having attained
finality, barred on the ground of change of opinion or would amount to reas-
sessment when once the revenue not taken recourse to appeal in higher forum
- Once adjudication taken place under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944,
Department cannot proceed to recover on the basis of “erroneous refund” un-
der Section 11A ibid so as to enable the refund order to be revoked, as the
remedy lied under Section 35E ibid for applying to the Appellate Tribunal for
determination and not invoking Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras
31, 45]
Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy - Show cause notice
issued after more than two years from finalisation of assessment order, and
where there is change of opinion by issuance of show cause notice, writ peti-
tion is maintainable - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 42]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Arun Gupta v. Union of India — 2015 (371) ITR 394 (All. HC) — Referred .................................... [Para 16]
Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO — AIR 1961 SC 372 — Referred ...................................... [Para 16]
CIT v. Bhanji Lavji — 1972 (4) SCC 88 — Referred .............................................................................. [Para 16]
CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles — 2013 (11) SCC 373 — Relied on .............................................. [Paras 15, 42]
Collector v. Re-Rolling Mills — 1997 (94) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) — Referred ............................................... [Para 25]
Commissioner v. Addison & Co. Ltd. — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)
— Distinguished ............................................................................................ [Paras 7, 17, 18, 24, 32, 41]
Commissioner v. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd.
— 2016 (331) E.L.T. 206 (A.P.) — Referred ................................................................................ [Para 11]
CTO v. Binani Cements — 2014 (8) SCC 319 — Referred ................................................................... [Para 13]
Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai — 2016 (337) E.L.T. 189 (Mad.)
— Relied on .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 10, 44]
Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT — 2016 SCC Online 1536 — Referred .................................................. [Para 16]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Para 12]
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
— 2016 SCC Online All. 1539 — Relied on ................................................................... [Paras 15, 20, 42]
Shahnaz Ayurvedics v. Commissioner — 2004 (173) E.L.T. 337 (All.) — Relied on ............... [Paras 14, 42]
State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co.-Op. Milk P. Union Ltd.
— 2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) — Referred ................................................................................. [Para 20]
Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. — 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.)
— Distinguished ............................................................................................................... [Paras 9, 25, 40]
Union of India v. Rubber Products Ltd. — 2015 (326) E.L.T. 232 (S.C.) — Referred ...................... [Para 22]

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  192