CWP No.4258 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.4258 of 1990 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 M/s Indo Asian Fuse Gear (P) Limited and another -----Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 4.9.1989, Annexure P.1 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rohtak, rejecting application of the petitioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for shot, ‘the Act’). 2. Case of the petitioner is that from October 1986 to June 1987, it deposited Central Excise duty. Later, it was learnt that said duty was not chargeable on waste and scrap of copper as per notification dated 1.8.1984. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application for refund which has been rejected only on the ground that the same was beyond limitation prescribed under section 11B of the Act. The said rejection was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary and also amounting to levy of tax without authority of law. 1 CWP No.4258 of 1990 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed. It has been stated that the exemption notification applies only if scrap arises from copper and brass on which duty has already been paid. It has been further stated that refund application having been filed beyond six months was rightly rejected as barred by limitation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Limited and others v. Union of India and others, (1997) 5 SCC 536, it is now well settled that refund application ha s to comply with statutory limitation except where the refund is as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. In the present case, refund application being beyond limitation, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 6. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge September 22, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2 CWP No.4258 of 1990 3