Skip to content


Hyderabad Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 3665 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1987(27)ELT408(AP)
ActsCentral Excises and Salt Act; Central Excise Rules - Rule 11
AppellantHyderabad Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR. Srinivasamurthy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Jagannadha Rao, Standing Counsel for Central Government
Excerpt:
.....beyond period of limitation prescribed under rule 11 - while petitioner is entitled to refund of excise duty paid by it, it would be for assistant collector to determine what exact excess amount to be refunded. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim..........for consideration before a bench of this court, to which one of us was a party. in writ petition 463 of 1978, and it was held that the petitioners are entitled to refund of the tax even though the petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by rule 11 of the central excise rules when the duty itself is collected without any authority. 3. while the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the excise duty paid by it, it would be for the assistant collector, central excise, to determine what exactly is the amount which the petitioner can claim by way of refund. 4. following the aforesaid judgment, we quash the impugned order and direct the assistant collector to determine the excise duty to be refunded to the petitioner in the light of the said decision, and issue refund.....
Judgment:

K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.

1. This is a petition by Hyderabad Bottling Company Private Limited for the issue of a Writ of Mandumus directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 4,52,938.55 alleged to have been collected in excess of what is payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act in respect of aerated waters bottled by them. The Petition for refund was rejected as beyond limitation.

2. The question whether they are entitled to refund or not when one of the petitions for refund was filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party. In Writ Petition 463 of 1978, and it was held that the petitioners are entitled to refund of the tax even though the petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules when the duty itself is collected without any authority.

3. While the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the excise duty paid by it, it would be for the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, to determine what exactly is the amount which the petitioner can claim by way of refund.

4. Following the aforesaid Judgment, we quash the impugned order and direct the Assistant Collector to determine the excise duty to be refunded to the petitioner in the light of the said decision, and issue refund vouchers within three months of receipt of this order.

5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //