TRIVENI CHEMICALS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1197 · Decided: 15-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

TRIVENI CHEMICALS LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER I5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Act, 1944-Section 1 I B (As amended by Central Excise 
and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991)-Refund of excise duty-Plea of 
unjust enrichment raised by the claimant before the original as well as 
appellate authorities-After order for refund from judicial side, demand of C 
refund from administrative side-Denial of refund on the ground that it was 
for the claimant to prove that the burden of duty had been passed on to the 
customers relying on Amendment Act-Held: Claimant was entitled to refund-
Provisions of Section 1 I B as inserted by Amending Act would not be 
applicable to application to be dealt with on administrative side- D 
Administrative authorities were bound to refund the amount in view of 
doctrine of judicial discipline-The provision is not applicable to cases 
where proceedings came to an end before coming into force of the amending 
provision-Doctrine of Judicial discipline-Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment-
Retrospective operation of statute. 
Appellant, a manufacturer had deposited excise duty under protest After 
the manufactured article was classified under exempted item, appellant became 
entitled for refund of the duty and he applied for the same. He was denied 
E 
..- • 
refund. Appeal thereagainst was allowed. Appellant thereafter filed several 
representations. Despite that refund was not made. Plea of unjust enrichment F 
was taken before the original as well as the appellate authority. Such plea 
was not taken in the representations. Appellant filed a Writ Petition which 
'....t • 
was dismissed by High Court holding that the appellant was bound to prove 
that the incidence of duty was not p&ssed on to its customers. Hence the present 
appeal 
The question for consideration before this Court was whether in the 
facts of this case, Section I I B as amended by Section 3 of Central Excise 
and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, I99I is applicable. 
1197 
G 
H 
1198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The respondents herein could raise all contentions before the 
Appellate Authority. In fact, before the original authority, a plea of unjust 
enrichment was raised. Such a plea, however, appears to have not been raised 
before the Appellate Authority. If no such plea was raised, only because the 
B appellant herein filed an application to be dealt with on the administrative side 
for refund subsequently, the same would not attract the provisions of Section 
11 B of Central Excise Act, t 944 as inserted by Central Excise and Customs 
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991. (1202-F-H) 
2. The application filed subsequently by the appellant was required to 
C be filed to proceed with the.matter on administrative side. Appellant had all 
along been contending that despite such order, the amount in questi~n had 
not been refu11ded. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the concerned 
authorities to comply with the order passed by the Collector. The authorities 
were bound to do so in view of the doctrine of judicial discipline. The same 
D having not been done the plea sought to be raised now that it was for the 
appellant to prove that the burden of the duty had not been passed to the 
customers cannot be accepted. (1202-G-H; 1203-A-B] 
3. Section 11 B was inserted with retrospective effect. However, the 
retrospective effect and retroactive operation given to the said provision 
E confined only to cases where the applications for refund were pending. The 
said provision did not apply to a case where the proceeding had come to an 
end before coming into force of the said amending provision. (1203-B-C] 
Mafatlal Industries Ltd and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1997] 5 
SCC 536; Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied 
F Photographies India Ltd, (2004] 4 sec 34, distinguished. 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5836 of2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.2004 of the High Court 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.C.A. No. 7949/1991. 
Jay Savla and Reena Bagga for the Appellant. 
Mohan Pararsaran, A.S.G., B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
... 
TRI VEN I CHEMICALS LTD. v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
1199 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
A 
Appellant is a manufacturer of 'Adhesive' falling under Tariff Item No. 
68 of the erstwhile schedule to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.