Page 93 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

Law

2020 (373) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Vineet Kothari and R. Suresh Kumer, JJ.
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. No. 14238 of 2005, decided on 12-2-2020
1
Refund - Limitation - Demand - Protest - Assessee seeking refund of
excise duty paid on clearance of stainless steel coin blanks to Department of
Economic Affairs in terms of Ad hoc Exemption Order No. 11/11/94, dated 21-9-
1994 - HELD : Ad hoc Exemption granted to specific assessee, in specific facts
and for specific quantity of Coin Blanks manufactured and supplied to De-
partment of Economic Affairs - Impugned case not case for general exemption
on the basis of which Assessee claiming refund - Payment of excise duty at
time of clearance of goods in anticipation of exemption right from day one was
therefore with ardent hope of real and effective exemption and refund of duty
paid under compulsion for clearance of goods - Such payment even though
not labelled as been paid ‘under protest’, very well to be treated as payment
made ‘under protest’ only as per provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise
Act, 1944 paving way for rightful refund of excise duty in consonance with
Article 265 of Constitution of India - Impugned order set aside - Section 11B of
Central Excise Act, 1944. - While on the one hand the fixed quantity exemption from
whole of the duty granted on 21-9-1994 in this case was consciously granted by the Cen-
tral Government knowing that supplies have already been made in January, 1994 the
same was successfully defeated partially by the Assessing Authority taking a narrow and
pedantic view of the limitation in the matter. It was open to the Assessing Authority to
seek a clarification from his higher authorities, as to whether the payment by the assessee
with regard to the clearance of these goods in question could be treated as payment ‘under
protest’ or not as the assessee itself is a Government of India Undertaking, but instead of
doing that, taking a shortcut pro-revenue approach, the Adjudicating Authority thought
it better to adopt a negative approach of denying the refund on that ground, pushing the
Government of India Undertaking into the whirlpool of litigation, which resulted in se-
vere loss of public time and money and time of the valuable time of the Courts. [paras 8,
9, 11]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2004 (177) E.L.T. 1128 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  93