1. This is a matter in which Revision Application was filed by the appellants against Order-in-Appeal No. V(IF) 2-2/76 dated 15-9-1976, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. This has since been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an Appeal before us.
2. Shri N. Safaya, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.D. Tayal, S.D.R., on behalf of the respondents.
3. It is submitted by Shri Safaya, learned Advocate that the appellants were manufacturers of Maida. On the midnight of 28th May, 1971, Excise Duty was levied on Maida. A Bill to this effect was presented in Parliament on that date. However, under Government of India's Notification No. GSR/941 issued on 10th June, 1971, Maida was exempted from payment of duty. The appellants had been paying Excise Duty on Maida from 1-6-1971 to 9-6-1971 according to Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. The case of the appellants has been that in view of the fact that the payment of duty from 1-6-1971 to 9-6-1971 was done under Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, and that, ultimately, when the Finance Act was passed on 10th August, 1971, duty on Maida had been withdrawn through an Exemption Notification, issued on 10th June 1971, therefore, in terms of the relevant provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act itself, appellants were entitled to refund of duty collected on Maida. Accordingly, they claimed a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 8,532/-, paid during the relevant period. In support of their claim, the appellants have filed a copy of judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Case No. 164 of 1971 of Flour and Food Ltd., Indore v. Union of India and Ors. On identical facts, the High Court had admitted the Writ and ruled that the petitioners were entitled to the refund claimed by them.
4. On a query from the Bench, Shri K.D. Tayal, learned SDR, stated that he had no comments, in view of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He also stated that it did not appear that there was any contrary decision by any other High Court available in favour of the Department.
5. In view of the foregoing facts, and in respectfully submitting to the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.