The said application has been dismissed by the High Court against which the present appeals are filed.The appellant herein is the purchaser and the fourth respondent is the manufacturer.
On the ground that the duty was number exigible according to law as declared by the Bombay High Court in the case of another manufacturer, the first appellant herein filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court claiming refund of the said amount saying that since the levy of the said duty has been declared to be unsustainable in law and because the burden of the duty has been passed on to him, the duty must be refunded to him.
P. Jeevan Reddy and Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
Certain excise duty was companylected from the fourth respondent manufacturer.
The fourth respondent was the third petitioner in the High Court having been transposed from the array of the respondents to the array of the petitioners .
