Fluidomat Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

refund - central excise--exemption--petitioner's claim for refund rejected on ground of limitation--not justified--state should not take plea of limitation against just claim--authorities to decide claim on merits--central excises and salt act (1 of 1944), section 11-b--constitution of india, article 226--notfn. no. 120/75-ce dated 30.4.1975.;the petitioner filed a claim on ground that it was entitled to benefit of exemption for each category under notification no. 120/75-ce dated 30.4.1975. that claim was turned down on the ground that it was barred by time. on a writ petition: - - although learned counsel was permitted in refuting his contention by saying that he can point out that the claims as filed was well within time.order1. by this petition under article 226 of constitution the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.1.1988 passed by the asstt. collector, central excise, filed as ann. 8. 2. the petitioner filed a claim on the ground that the company was entitled to benefit of exemption for each categories (sic) under notification no. 120/75 dtd. 30.4.1975. this claim was turned down on the ground that it was barred by time. 3. shri neema, learned standing counsel for the union of india contends that the petitioner ought to have filed this claim for refund within the statutory time as prescribed. although learned counsel was permitted in refuting his contention by saying that he can point out that the claims as filed was well within time. be that is it may be. 4. as pointed out by the supreme court in the madras port trust v. hymanshu international : 1979(4)elt396(sc) , the plea of limitation should not have been invoked by the asstt. collector. it is contrary to the principles as laid down by the supreme court. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the decision of the supreme court in the madras port trust (supra) submitted that it does not behove the state to.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.1.1988 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, filed as Ann. 8.

2. The petitioner filed a claim on the ground that the company was entitled to benefit of exemption for each categories (sic) under notification No. 120/75 dtd. 30.4.1975. This claim was turned down on the ground that it was barred by time.

3. Shri Neema, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India contends that the petitioner ought to have filed this claim for refund within the statutory time as prescribed. Although learned Counsel was permitted in refuting his contention by saying that he can point out that the claims as filed was well within time. Be that is it may be.

4. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International : 1979(4)ELT396(SC) , the plea of limitation should not have been invoked by the Asstt. Collector. It is contrary to the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Madras Port Trust (supra) submitted that it does not behove the State to invoke such pleas of limitation in order to defeat otherwise a just claim.

6. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the impugned order dated 13.1.1988 (Ann.8) is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. Consequently the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the petitioner's claim on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. With this direction the petition stands finally disposed with no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded after verification.