Ajay Kumar Mittal ORDER
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 17220, 17229 and 17233 of 2010 as all the three petitions involve same question of law. In CWP No. 17220 of 2010, a direction has been sought for quashing order dated 25-10-2006, Annexure P-3, rejecting claim of the petitioner for refund under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") on the ground that the application for refund was beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. The said order has been affirmed in appeal and revision.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the manufacture of quilted Bed Spread etc. under Chapter 63 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It paid excise duty on exported excisable goods which was not payable and filed applications for refund which were beyond the statutory period of six months. Accordingly, the same were rejected on that ground.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It is not disputed that the applications for refund filed by the petitioner were beyond prescribed statutory period. Only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that denial of refund will be violation of Article 265 of the Constitution and, therefore, applications for refund should have been allowed even after limitation.
6. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, MANU/SC/1203/1997 : (1997) 5 SCC 536 : 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 holding that refund application beyond period specified under Section 11B of the Act could not be entertained unless refund was as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be held to be erroneous. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.