J.B. Mehta, J.
1. The petitioners in this petition challenge the impugned orders of the respondent - authorities refusing to refund the duty of Rs. 57,576.20 P. for the period from April 24, 1962 to July 12, 1962. The refund claim was rejected by the order, dated September 18, 1964 at Annexure D and the appeal and the revision having been dismissed by the orders at Annex. F and G dated July 4, 1967 and October 5, 1972 and as the division was not reviewed, the present petition was filed.
2. The petition is based on a complete misconception of an analogy from the earlier exemption notification scheme. The original notification No. 21, of 1961, dated March 1, 1961 had provided in the relevant table proviso that if the duty had already been paid at the rate applicable to the varieties specified in column (2) of the table appended below, the fabrics specified in column (3) thereof shall be exempt from so much of duty as was in excess of the duty specified in column (4) thereof. The relevant column No. 1 provided for beached and not otherwise processed fabrics at the time of clearance from the factory. The duty in col. 4 is 1 N.P. per sq. meter S. No. 3 entry dealt with fabrics other than bleached but dyed, printed mercerised or/and otherwise chemically processed for which the duty was of 3 n.p. per sq. meter in col. No. 4. Therefore, under the original notification manually Dhobi bleached variety of fabrics were totally exempt and even for bleached with the aid of power, the duty was at smaller rate of 1 Paise per sq. metre. From April 24, 1964, by the relevant notification No. 43 of 1962, dated April 24, 1962 the aforesaid notification No. 21 of 1962 was superseded and the Central Government exempted cotton fabrics of the description specified in Col. 2 from so much of the duty leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in col. No. 3 thereof. The table gave various varieties of fabrics and the duty. Thereafter the proviso enacted that if the duty had already been paid at the rate applicable to the varieties specified in column No. (2) of the table appended below the fabrics specified in col. 3 thereof shall be exempt from so much of duty as is in excess of the duty specified in the Corresponding entry in col. 4, thereof. In the entry at S. No. 1 there was a combined variety of fabrics viz. bleached or/and printed or/and dyed and not otherwise processed for which the duty at the time of clearance was 5 naya paise per square metre. Therefore, the change introduced by the relevant notification from April 24, 1964, was that bleaching as a separate process carrying on a lower rate of duty was not envisaged and where bleaching or and dyeing or printing was done with the aid of power, it carried the duty of 5 n.p. per square metre and excess that was only exempted. Admittedly, in the present case the Dhobi bleached cloth which was manually bleached at that stage did not attract any duty but it was dyed and printed with the aid of power, in the petitioner's factory and, therefore, this rate of 5 n.p. duty was attracted. The Dhobi bleached cloth would have been entitled to total exemption if the petitioner did not further process that cloth by dying and/or printing. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's claim for a refund was wholly misconceived and was rightly refused by the authorities.
3. Mr. Shelat, however, vehemently argued that the order was sought to be communicated granting this refund by the Assistant Collector and, therefore, that order sanctioning refund on November 6, 1962 could not have been reviewed in the absence of any power of review. In para 3 this contention has been in terms dealt with by the authorities by pointing out that in fact no final operative refund order was passed. The claim was only during the process of the scrutiny of the refund claim and accordingly the refund bills were prepared but when it was found that the claim was not admissible, the claim was rejected. Therefore, even the passing of the order or its communication sanctioning the alleged refund is totally denied and Mr. Mehta from his file made a statement that no such order was passed. Therefore, the whole contention of Mr. Shelat in this behalf is thoroughly misconceived.
4. Mr. Shelat next argued that for the subsequent period from July, 1962 upto June 1963 a demand of Rs. 1,99,636-79 P. was sought to be made and was ultimate quashed. From that order Mr. Shelat could draw no inspiration for the simple reason that Mr. Mehta has rightly pointed out that the demand being not within the time, it had to be quashed on that short ground. Therefore, that order could never come in the way of the authority refusing refund in the present case in view of the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, no ground whatever survives and the petition must fail. Rule is, therefore, discharged with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.