M.K. Dyeing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....under which he has paid the tax nor can he claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law. a person, whether a manufacturer or importer, must fight his own battle and must succeed or fail in such proceedings. once the assessment of levy has become final in his case, he cannot seek to reopen it nor can he claim refund without re-opening such assessment/order on the ground of a decision in another person's case. any proposition to the contrary not only results in substantial prejudice to public interest but is offensive to several well established principles of law. it also leads to grave public mischief. section 72 of the contract act, or for that matter section 17(1)(c) of the limitation act, 1963, has no application to such a claim for refund." since the appellants in these cases, have not challenged the acp's fixed in their own cases, they cannot seek to re-open the refund claim on grounds of decisions in another person's case. in view of the above decision of the apex court. refund claims are therefore required to be rejected.

Judgment:

1. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found that the orders had been passed after hearing both sides.

2. In these cases the order of Annual Capacity Production (ACP) determining the quantum of amounts to be discharged as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not challenged by the appellants.

The appellants, however, subsequently filed a refund claim for availing benefit of the decision in the case of SPBL Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 254 (S.C)] wherein the length of the galleries were held not to be included for determining the ACP.3. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)l in Para 99(iv) have held as follows : "99. (iv) It is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a Court or Tribunal rendered in the case of another person, He cannot also claim that the decision of the Court/Tribunal in another person's case had led him to discover the mistake of law under which he has paid the tax nor can he claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law. A person, whether a manufacturer or importer, must fight his own battle and must succeed or fail in such proceedings. Once the assessment of levy has become final in his case, he cannot seek to reopen it nor can he claim refund without re-opening such assessment/order on the ground of a decision in another person's case. Any proposition to the contrary not only results in substantial prejudice to public interest but is offensive to several well established principles of law. It also leads to grave public mischief. Section 72 of the Contract Act, or for that matter Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no application to such a claim for refund." Since the appellants in these cases, have not challenged the ACP's fixed in their own cases, they cannot seek to re-open the refund claim on grounds of decisions in another person's case. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court. Refund claims are therefore required to be rejected.