Page 112 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

294 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-III v. Grasim Industries - (2015) 14 SCC = 2015 (318) E.L.T. 594 (S.C.).
Counsel for the respondent Mr. Anuroop Singhi has relied on the judg-
ment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesti-
cide (P.) Ltd. [2000] 2000 Taxmann.com 861 (SC) = 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) and
Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India - [2012] 25 taxmann.com
496 (Raj.).
10. We have heard Counsel for the parties.
11. The matter was heard on 1-3-2017. We have called upon the either
parties to produce on record the refund order passed by the competent authority
which has now been produced.
12. However, Mr. Singhi has tried to justify on the ground of unjust en-
richment. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court which has been
made retrospective effect and in our considered opinion, when the competent
authority i.e. Superintendent, Central Excise Range-I has passed the order of re-
fund, it will not be appropriate to adjudicate the same issue in a refund applica-
tion preferred by the assessee, more particularly when he has specifically made a
declaration and last time when the matter was argued, Counsel for the appellant
has specifically made the point that the tax which has been paid was part of the
price which has been recovered.
13. Taking into account the averments which are made, in our consid-
ered opinion, the Tribunal and all other authorities committed a serious error in
refusing to refund the amount and after the order passed which was not chal-
lenged.
14. In that view of the matter, both the issues are required to be an-
swered in favour of the assessee. The authority is directed to refund the amount
as directed by the Superintendent in his order dated 7-6-2000.
15. Both the appeals stand allowed.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 294 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Oka and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 2527 of 1999, decided on 12-9-2017
Medicament - Formulations containing Dextropropoxyphene - Classi-
fication of, as ‘Narcotic Drug’ or ‘Narcotic’ under Section 2(h) of Medicinal and
Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 - HELD : Impugned petition
squarely covered by judgment in U.S.V. Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T. 587 (Bom.)] - As
per Item No. 86 in notification dated 12-6-1986, issued by Central Government
in terms of provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties)
Act, 1955 and Narcotic Drug or Narcotic to include only formulations contain-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  112