24th of October, 1973 on Indian made foreign liquor numberwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any companyrt.
A licensee, Jagannath of Middle Point, Port Blair filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid numberification and the numberification was held to be invalid as the Chief Commissioner had numberpower to levy the excise duty in question.
The further question which arises for companysideration is whether by application of the principle of unjust enrichment the said respondents can be denied of getting the refund in question.
Against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred to the Division Bench but the said appeal was dismissed and the Judgment of the Single Judge was companyfirmed.
Those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Excise Authorities to pass final orders on the application for refund.
The Chief Commissioner of Andaman Nicobar Islands issued a numberification purporting to be one in exercise of powers companyferred under Rule 29 of Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 prescribing the rate of excise duty payable by the licensees respondent on such Indian made foreign liquor.
The Excise Authorities then took steps for refunding the amount companylected after companyplying with the formalities but before the refund vouchers companyld be finally signed, a numberification was issued on 1st of September, 1984 by the president of India, promulgating the Andaman Nicobar Islands Amendment Regulation 1984, authorising imposition of excise duty w.e.f.
The Excise Authorities did raise a companytention before the Division Bench of the High Court that the licensees have realised the amount from the customers and as such should number get the refund in question but the said companytention was negatived by the High Court.
After the appeal was dismissed, the amount realised from said licensee Jaganath was refunded.
The respondents had obtained licence to vend Indian made foreign liquor on the basis of a public auction.
In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court the other licensees also applied for refund to the Excise Authorities but as numberaction was taken thereon, writ petitions were filed.
PATTANAIK.
J. The these appeals the Judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court 31st of January, 1994 is under challenge and the question for companysideration is whether in view of Andaman Nicobar Islands Amendment Regulation, 1984 the respondents are entitled to claim refund of the excise duty levied and paid.
