Steel City Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

A.K. Sikri, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for refund of the excise duty paid allegedly excess than the duty payable under the law. The respondents have, or course, disputed this allegation of the petitioner that the excise duty paid by the petitioner is in excess. It is not necessary to go into the dispute involved in these petitions inasmuch as the writ petition claiming such a refund is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . It has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that all claims for refund except where levy is held to be unconstitutional, to be preferred and adjudicated upon u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subject to claimant establishing that burden of duty has not been passed on to third party. It is also held that since exclusivity of the provisions in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 as well as Customs Act, 1962 relating to refund-and conversely the bar to other proceedings created by them is specific to the subject of refund and further that these Acts create new rights and liabilities and also provide for machinery for assessment and adjudication of those rights and liabilities, bar to the jurisdiction to civil court arises by necessary implication. The petitioner also raises disputed question of fact. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal''s case (supra), we would not like to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.