Apar Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

M.L. Pendse, J.—It is not necessary to set out the facts leading to the filing of this petition in great detail because the main controversy stands conclude decision recorded by Full Bench of this Court and reported in Apar Private Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others, . The proceedings are required to be remitted back to the Collector of Central Excise and Custom, Pune and only the relevant facts to appreciate the order of remand would be set out hereinafter.

The petitioners filed five applications for refund of customs duty before the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune. Three applications were lodged on August 8, 1973, while the remaining two on August 17, 1973. The total amount of refund sought by these applications was to the tune of Rs. 3,07,000/-. The applications were rejected by the Collector by order dated September 26, 1974 and the order of rejection was confirmed by the revisional authority on June 16, 1978. The refusal of the Collector to grant these refund applications is under challenge in this petition.

The petitioners had also sought refund to the tune of Rs. 22,21,342.44 and that prayer was rejected by the Collector by order dated June 8, 1977. The Collector of Central Excise served show cause notice dated June 15, 1978 on the petitioners to explain why the order awarding refund should not be revoked and the refund paid should not be recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners filed their reply on July 19, 1978 but the Collector of Central Excise and Customs did not accept the claim of the petitioners and passed the order directing the petitioners to refund the duty which was repaid in pursuance of the earlier order. The Collector passed the order on March 21, 1979 i.e. after the filing of the present petition. The petitioners amended the petition and challenged this order of the Collector.

Shri Cooper, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in view of the decision of the full Bench, the order rejecting the refund application filed by the petitioners and also the order demanding the refund duty already paid are required to be set aside. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. The impugned orders are passed by the Collector without having advantage of the decision of the Full Bench. Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, very fairly stated that the Collector will have to pass fresh order in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the impugned orders passed.

Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order passed by the Collector rejecting five refund applications filed by the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 3,07,000/- is set aside. The order of the revisional authority confirming the order of the Collector is also set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Collector for fresh determination and for passing appropriate order on five refund applications in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench. The order dated March 21, 1979 passed by the Collector in pursuance of the show cause notice dated June 15, 1978 is also set aside and the Collector is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with the decision with the decision of the Full Bench. The Collector is directed to pass appropriate order in respect of both these cases by end of December 1990. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.