JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Paliwal Mini Steel (India) Ltd., and its Managing Director Sri Bimal Kishore Paliwal for a writ of mandamus directing the union of India to refund the excise duty amounting to Rs. 61,493.40 and the interest calculated on the same at the rate of 12 percent per annum amounting to Rs. 18,150. 2. The petitioner no.1 is a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956. It is carrying on the business of manufacturing mild steel ingots. Prior to the notification no. 112 of 1977, which came into force on 18.6.1977, it was paying excise duty on the steel ingots at the rate of basic and Rs. 25 auxiliary per metric tonne. The excise duty is leviable on steel ingots vide entry no. 26 of Schedule I of Central Excise and Sale (sic Salt) Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By the said notification no.112 of 1977 dated 18.6.1977, excise duty on the steel ingots was increased to Rs. 180 per metric tonne. The relevant portion of the aforesaid notification is quoted below: "G.S.R. 304 (F) : In the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby directs that the notifications of the Govt. of India in Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking, as the case may be, specified in column (2) of the table hereto annexed shall be amended or further amended, as the case may be, in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table: S.No. Notification No. and date Amendment 1 2 3 1 to 8 ................ ….... 9.237/75 Central Excises dated the 9th Dec., 1975 In the said notification for the words 'twenty five rupees' the words 'one hundred and eighty rupees' shall be substituted." 3. Section 3 of the Act provides that the duties specified in the First Schedule shall be levied and collected in such manner, as may be prescribed. "4(2) Where in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal. "4(2) Where in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal. to the place of delivery shall be excluded from such price." 4. Excise duty is a duty on the manufacture of goods and, is chargeable on the value of goods manufactured. Section 4 of the Act applies in those cases where excise duty is leviable ad valorem and the provisions of Section 4 provide how value has to be determined for the purpose of levying and collection of ad valorem duty. This lays down that the excise duty can only be levied from manufactures in respect of goods manufactured by them. The value of such goods under section 4 is the wholesale cash price which includes manufacturing costs and manufacturing profits. The old section 4 of the Act provided that the real value should be found after deducting the selling cost and selling profit and that the real value could include only the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit. 5. In the instant case, after the withdrawal of excise duty vide notification no. 235 of 1977 dated 15.7.77, the petitioner-company claimed that it became entitled for the refund of excise duty deposited by it in view of the provisions of Provincial (sic Provisional) Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. 6. The petitioner filed a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 61,493. 40P before the respondent no.2. This application for refund was rejected by the respondent no.2 by an order dated 5.12.1977 holding that the notification no.235 of 1977 would be effective only w.e.f. 15.7.1977 and, therefore, the duty on steel ingots paid by the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 180 per metric tonne for the period 18.6.1977 to 14.7.1977 had rightly been levied and realised. This application for refund was rejected by the respondent no.2 by an order dated 5.12.1977 holding that the notification no.235 of 1977 would be effective only w.e.f. 15.7.1977 and, therefore, the duty on steel ingots paid by the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 180 per metric tonne for the period 18.6.1977 to 14.7.1977 had rightly been levied and realised. Rejecting the claim of the petitioners the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise Division, Jaipur vide order dated 5.12.1977 held as under : "I have examined the refund claim,and it is found that Notification No. 235/77 under which the duty on steel ingots has been completely withdrawn has been issued on 45.7.77 and as such the same would be effective only from the date of issue, i.e., 15.7.77 and there is no indication in the said notification that the same will have the restrospective effect. There- fore, the duty on steel ingots paid at the rate of Rs. 180.00 P.M.T leviable under Notification No. 112 of 1977 dated 18.6.77, from 18.6.77 to 14.7.77 has rightly been paid by the party and no refund is admissible. In view of the above position, I reject the refund claim." 7. Against the aforesaid order of the Asstt. Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal under section 35 of the Act. The period prescribed for filing of an appeal is three weeks from the date of such decision or order. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was not within time prescribed by Section 35 and, therefore, it was dismissed by the Collector vide its order dated 30.6.78. The order of the Appellate Collector is quoted below:- "The Asstt. Collector's order C.No. V(26)18/37/CEI/77/17836-38 is dated 5.12.77 was received by the appellants on 11.12.77 of as is evident from Postal Acknowledgment. The appellants preferred the appeal against the said order which was received in this office on 3.5.78, i.e. after the expiry of the statutory limitation of 3 months. The appeal is, therefore, time barred and is hereby rejected under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the repeal of the notification by which the excise duty on steel ingots had been raised, the petitioners became entitled to get Rs. 61,493.40P plus interest. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the repeal of the notification by which the excise duty on steel ingots had been raised, the petitioners became entitled to get Rs. 61,493.40P plus interest. 10. Relevant entry of the notification dated 15.7.77 which had been issued by the Govt. of India in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under which the petitioners claim the refund of the aforesaid amount, is reproduced below : "G.S.R. 514 (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Govt. hereby directs that the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance Deptt. or Revenue and Insurance or Deptt. of Revenue and Banking, as the case may be, in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said table: SI. No. Notification No. and date Amendment 1 2 3 1.237/75 Central Excise the 9th Dec., 1975 In the said notification "from so much of the entry of excise leviable thereon as in the excess of one hundred and eighty rupees per metric tonne" from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon shall be substituted." 11. As already stated above, the claim of the petitioners was not accepted by the Department on the ground that the notification no. 235/77 dated 15.7.77 was not effective retrospectively and whatever had been paid as excise duty, could not be refunded. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that excise duty was withdrawn vide notification no. 235/77 dated 15.7.77.In fact, the excise duty on the steel ingots was not withdrawn. Steel ingots were exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon w.e.f. 15.7.77. It was rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a difference between withdrawal of duty and the granting of exemption of duty. Withdrawal connotes the deletion of the item from the First Schedule of Central Excise and Salt Act which can be done with the approval of the Parliament and once it is withdrawn with the approval of the Parliament, it cannot be reimposed. Withdrawal connotes the deletion of the item from the First Schedule of Central Excise and Salt Act which can be done with the approval of the Parliament and once it is withdrawn with the approval of the Parliament, it cannot be reimposed. However, in case of granting exemption, rule 8(1),8(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 empowers the Govt. of India to exempt any goods from whole of part of the Central Excise Duty leviable thereon. In the present case, the petitioners wrongly asserted that the Parliament had withdrawn central excise on steel ingots. The notification no. 235/77 dated 15.7.77 was issued under rule 8(1) withdrawing the same. It will have its effect from the date of its issue, as a result whereof, the steel ingots were exempted w.e.f.15.7.77 and the petitioners are not entitled for any refund of duty paid by them prior to the issue of the said notification. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid emphasis on the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, but to my mind, these provisions do not apply to the present case. 14. The tariff rate of the steel ingots was increased in the Finance Bill of 1977 from Rs. 100 to Rs. 350 per metric tonne. The said tariff rate had been approved by the Parliament without any change, which became the part of the Finance Act, 1977. It is therefore, incorrect to assert that any change was made in by the Parliament in the Finance Bill in case of steel ingots. 15. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, I have come to the conclusion that liability of payment of excise duty on steel ingots ceased after the notification exempting the same issued by notification no. 235 of 1977 dated 15.7.77. Therefore, the Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector rightly held the petitioner to be liable to pay excise duty. 16. Another aspect of the matter which deserves mention is that the appeal of the petitioners preferred under section 35 was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. Since the authorities under the Act were not the Courts, within the meaning of Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply. In fact, the petitioners even did not give any explanation for the late filing of the appeal, which was time barred by three months. Since the authorities under the Act were not the Courts, within the meaning of Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply. In fact, the petitioners even did not give any explanation for the late filing of the appeal, which was time barred by three months. Law does not permits person to file an appeal against an order of an authority as and when he likes. For late filing, he will have to explain the delay and as the delay was not explained in the present case, the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. 17. The next aspect of the matter which I consider it to be necessary to mention is that the petitioner would be unjustifiably enriched by pocketing the amount already realised from the customers by way of excise duty. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per market practise, excise duty is never passed on to the customers directly as in other cases. Excise duty is paid as and when the product is sent out of the factory for sale in the market. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the excise duty could be realised by the petitioners from the customers had the petitioners been held liable to pay the same. In the instant case, the petitioners realised excise duty from the customers unjustifiable and although they have pocketed the same, they are finding excuse for retaining it. This type of unjust enrichment has always been condemned and criticized. 18. In view of what I have said above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it deserves to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.Petition dismissed with costs. *******