Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 746 (GAU)

Shree Sai Rolling Mills v. Union of India

2007-11-16

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2007
JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This bunch of writ petitions, virtually involving common questions of fact and of law, were heard together and are now being disposed of by a common judgment. The sole question for consideration in the writ petitions is as to whether the deductions made by the Respondents from the Central Excise Duty refundable to each of the Petitioners under the Notification No. 32/99 CE dated 8.7.1999, for the purpose of recovery of the duty owed by another business concern on the basis of the General Corporate Guarantee Bond executed by them, are legal or not. 2. To simplify the matter, I shall first confine myself to WP(C) No. 10(SH) of 2006 and then attempt to dispose of the remaining writ petitions on the basis of my findings and conclusions in the former case. In WP(C) No. 10(SH) of 2006, the Petitioner is a public limited company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office and factory at 15th Miles, Rangsakona, Byrnihat in Ri-bhoi District, Meghalaya. The Petitioner-company is also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and storage of (i) M.S. Bars and Rods falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 7214.90 and (ii) M.S. Angles and Channels falling under the Chapter Sub-Head 7214.90. It would appear that in pursuance of the New Industrial Policy, 1997, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India issued the Notification dated 8.7.1999 under Section 5-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allowing exemption of Central Excise duty by refunding an amount equivalent to the duty paid, other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, for a period of 10 years, to industrial units fulfilling certain terms and conditions. This notification was subsequently amended by the Notification dated 29.3.2000 by which certain areas also came to be included. There is no dispute that the Petitioner-company is entitled to the aforesaid exemption benefit. 3. The Petitioner-company commenced commercial production w.e.f. 30th March, 2002, and has accordingly been allowed the central excise exemption in terms of the aforesaid notifications vide the order dated 28.10.2002 issued by the Asstt. There is no dispute that the Petitioner-company is entitled to the aforesaid exemption benefit. 3. The Petitioner-company commenced commercial production w.e.f. 30th March, 2002, and has accordingly been allowed the central excise exemption in terms of the aforesaid notifications vide the order dated 28.10.2002 issued by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Shillong Division and had also for sometime been refunded the Central Excise duty paid out of Account Current every month from the date of the commercial production. The Petitioner-company also apparently allowed refund of the duty paid out of Account Current up to the month of September 2006. The Petitioner-company paid on 3.11.2006 a sum of Rs. 22,00,000 towards Basic Excise Duty for the month of October, 2006 through its current account and thereafter claimed for refund of Rs. 22,05,990 for the month of October 2006. According to the Petitioner-company, the Respondent No. 3 ought to have refunded this amount to it by the 15th of November, 2006; having not done so, the Respondent No. 3 violated the conditions of the notification dated 8.7.1999. When the repeated requests made by the Petitioner-company to the Respondents to refund the amount failed to evoke any response, this writ petition has been filed for appropriate directions. 4. The writ petition is contested by the Respondents by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. The case of the Respondents, as pleaded in the affidavit-in-opposition, is that the Petitioner-company is one of the units of SAIJI group of companies, which comprises of (i) M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (P.) Ltd., (ii) the Petitioner-company, (iii) M/s. Shree Sai Smelter (P.) Ltd. Unit-I, and Shree Sai Smelter (P.) Ltd., Unit-II, and (iv) M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd. and that M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd. was liable for payment of Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 102.5 lakhs as per the order No. V(4) 4/Demands/Bur/98/262, dated 7.3.2000 since it was not covered by the exemption notification No. 32/99, dated 8.7.1999 (Annexure-F). The said M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (P.) Ltd. had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 67(SH) of 2000 challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, shilling denying the benefit of the said notification (Annexure-F). The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge whereupon the Respondent-authorities preferred WA No. 224 of 2003. The said M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (P.) Ltd. had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 67(SH) of 2000 challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, shilling denying the benefit of the said notification (Annexure-F). The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge whereupon the Respondent-authorities preferred WA No. 224 of 2003. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the said unit did not establish its manufacturing unit pursuant to the Industrial Policy Resolution dated 24.12.1997 and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of excise duty exemption made available by the notification at Annexure-F. In the review petition filed by the said unit, no stay was granted by this Court. According to the answering Respondents, they, on the expiry of 90 days of the judgment and order of the Writ appeal, took appropriate measures for recovering the excise duty due from M/s. Shree Sai Smelter (P.) Ltd. from the units of the said "SAIJI" Group of Companies, which includes the Petitioner-company. It is pleaded by the Revenue that they did not withhold the excise duties refundable to the Petitioner-company but merely adjusted the same for making good the excise duties recoverable from its parent unit, namely, M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd. commencing from October 2006 onwards. The Revenue points out that the Petitioner-company executed the general corporate guarantee bond in their favour to that effect. It is also pleaded by the Respondent-authorities that when the parent unit came to realize that the writ appeal preferred by them was not likely to succeed, it, as an afterthought, moved the Respondent No. 3 to allow it to surrender the registration certificate granted to it and got the Petitioner-company to furnish the said guarantee bond for satisfying the excise liability of its parent unit, but the application was not accepted as there was outstanding demand against the parent unit. It is alleged by the revenue that the parent unit deliberately stopped production in its manufacturing unit with a view to take advantage of the Notification at Annexure-F and thereafter started production of similar items through its other unit, namely, M/s. Shree Sai smelter Unit-I, by keeping its business in existence to grab revenue meant for the government by this device and, conversely, to deprive the government of its legitimate revenues. It is, thus, contended by the Respondent-authorities that they legally appropriated the excise duties refundable to the Petitioner-company for recovery of the dues of its parent unit in accordance with the said corporate guarantee bond voluntarily executed by it. The writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 5. In the reply-affidavit, the Petitioner-company denies that it is one of the units of SAIJI Group of Companies and averts that it is an independent legal entity separately registered under the Companies Act, 1956. There is no evidence to show that it is one of the SAIJI Group of Companies or its sister unit. It is asserted by the Petitioner-company that the liability of a particular company cannot be taken over by any other company or adjusted against the asset of another company. Moreover, according to the Petitioner, no demand has been made against it till date nor has there been any adjudicating order passed to that effect till date. It is submitted by the Petitioner that there is no due of the Petitioner-company or the so-called parent unit in terms of the appellate judgment. On the question of the corporate guarantee bond, it is contended by the Petitioner that this document is not a document at all inasmuch as it was not properly executed or accepted by the authority and that, in any case, the bond cannot be invoked until the proceedings mentioned therein have reached their finality. Moreover, according to the Petitioner, since the Division Bench has held that the Notification No. 32(CE)/99 must be read in conformity with the Industrial Policy dated 24.12.1997, the conditions given in the so-called guarantee bond cannot be enforced as there is no demandable excise duty either against it or other companies, and the Respondents are liable to refund the amount illegally withheld by them. It is further contended by the Petitioner that the paragraph quoted by the Respondents from the said judgment of the Division Bench is not relevant as the same are in respect of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: the Respondents have conveniently omitted to refer to paragraph 33 of the same judgment which was decided in it favour. It is further contended by the Petitioner that the paragraph quoted by the Respondents from the said judgment of the Division Bench is not relevant as the same are in respect of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: the Respondents have conveniently omitted to refer to paragraph 33 of the same judgment which was decided in it favour. In other words, it is the case of the Petitioner that M/s. Shree Sai Megha alloys (P.) Ltd. has been exempted from payment of excise duty from the date of its commercial production in terms of the Industrial Policy as notified in the notification at Annexure-F. 6. To clear the grounds, it may at the outset be recalled that it was M/s. Shree Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd., which filed WP(C) No. 67(SH) of 2000 and succeeded in the writ petition. On the appeal filed by the Respondents, which was registered as WA No. 224/2003, the Division Bench of this Court, however, allowed the appeal. The decision of the Division Bench in respect of this appeal is important and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under: 51. Writ Appeal No. 224/2003 [arising out of WP(C) No. 67(SH)/2000, Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd.]. The writ Petitioner admits that the company started its unit w.e.f. 17.9.1997 observing all the formalities and permission with all relevant certificates including No Objection Certificate granted by the authorities. It is also admitted that it had commenced its commercial production on and from 17.9.1997. It is, however, stated that the Petitioner company regularly has been submitting monthly return timely with full particulars to the Central Excise Department. It is, therefore, obvious that the Petitioner company did not establish its manufacturing units pursuant to the Industrial Policy Resolution dated 24.12.1997 and had altered its position based on Industrial Policy Resolution dated 24.12.1997. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, however, one sentence is incorporated in hand writing, which bears nobody's signature, stating "thereafter the capacities of the unit was extended from 3 MT to 7 MT and production of extended unit was started from 1.4.1999". There is no material made available in support of this plea. It is not even pleaded that such expansion has been undertaken altering its position based on the Industrial Policy Resolution dated 24.12.1997. There is no material made available in support of this plea. It is not even pleaded that such expansion has been undertaken altering its position based on the Industrial Policy Resolution dated 24.12.1997. It is evidently an after thought to add a self serving stray sentence into the writ petition so as to place reliance upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The plea so taken is totally vague and unsupported by relevant material and the same is not acceptable to us. The writ petition is thus devoid of any merit. 7. In my opinion, the paragraph extracted above is self-explanatory and flies in the face of the contention made by the Petitioner that M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd. is/was entitled to exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of the said Industrial Policy. In view of this, it is obvious that a sum of Rs. 102.5 lakhs is owed by M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys to the Respondents as excise duty. Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act') deals with the power of recovery of sums due to Government, which is in the following terms: 11....Recovery of sums due to Government. 102.5 lakhs is owed by M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys to the Respondents as excise duty. Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act') deals with the power of recovery of sums due to Government, which is in the following terms: 11....Recovery of sums due to Government. In respect of duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder (including the amount required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under Section11D), the officer empowered by the (Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963) to levy such duty or require the payment of such sums may deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sums may be recoverable or due which may be in his hands or under his disposal or control, or may recover the amount by attachment and sale of excisable goods belonging to such person, and if the amount payable is not so recovered, he may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from the person liable to pay the same and send it to the collector of the district in which such person resides or conducts his business and the said Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from the soid person the amount specified therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 8. A cursory glance at the aforesaid provision plainly shows that to enable the Respondent-authorities to invoke this provision, there must be some duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the rules made thereunder. This may include the amount required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11-D of the Act. Secondly, the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sums can be recovered or is due must be in the hands or under the disposal or control of the empowered officer. This may include the amount required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11-D of the Act. Secondly, the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sums can be recovered or is due must be in the hands or under the disposal or control of the empowered officer. The expression "owing to the person from such sums maybe recoverable or due" cannot be read in isolation, but must be read in the context of the preceding words, namely, "duty and other sums of any kind payable...under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the rules made thereunder", and so read, it becomes clear that this provision can be invoked only against the person from whom excise duty is due and not from any other person. In the instant case, as already noticed, it is the unit known as M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd., which owes an excise duty to the order of Rs. 102.5 lakhs to the Respondent-authorities. The Petitioner-company does not owe a single farthing to the revenue authorities. Therefore, the first contention of Mr. R Deb Nath, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-authorities, stands rejected. 9. It is next contended by Mr. R. Deb Nath, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-authorities, that the amount of the Excise duty refundable to the Petitioner had to be appropriated by the Respondent-authorities for recovery of the dues payable by the M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys by enforcing the corporate guarantee bond executed by the Petitioner-company. On the other hand, Mr. R.L. Yadav, the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner, argues that the corporate guarantee bond has ceased to have any effect and cannot be enforced once the application of M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy for its de-registration was rejected by the Respondent-authorities. He draws my attention to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of the Respondents which says "...The application of the M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (F.) Ltd. for surrendering of Registration granted was not accepted as there was outstanding demand against the said Unit". He draws my attention to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of the Respondents which says "...The application of the M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (F.) Ltd. for surrendering of Registration granted was not accepted as there was outstanding demand against the said Unit". According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner-company executed the corporate guarantee bond as an undertaking to satisfy the liabilities of M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys once its application for de-registration would be accepted, and when such application is admittedly not accepted, the corporate bond cannot be invoked by the Respondents. The learned Counsel contends that if there is any excise duty due from the said M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys, which is admittedly still in existence, the revenue authorities may recover the same from it in the manner prescribed by Section 11 of the Act. In other words, the primary contention of the learned senior Counsel is that the tax liabilities of the said unit cannot be fastened upon the Petitioner-company by invoking Section 11 of the Act or the corporate bond executed by it. 10. To understand the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties, it is necessary to refer to the corporate guarantee bond executed by the Petitioner-company which is at Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition and which is in the following terms: GENERAL CORPORATE GUARANTY BOND I/We M/s. Shree Sai Rolling Mills (India) (P.) Ltd. a private limited company having registered office and manufacturing unit at Vill-Rangsakona, 15th Mile, Byrnihat, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya and having Central Excise Registration No. AAFCS9785C-XM-001 hereinafter called "the obligor" and Sri S.K. Bhagat, Director of M/s. Shree Sai Rolling Mills (India) (P.) Ltd. hereinafter called "the surety/am/are held and firmly bound to the president of India (hereinmatter called 'the president') in the sum of Rs. 102.5 lakhs to be paid to the president for which payment will and truly to be made, I/We jointly and severally bind myself/ourselves and/our representative heirs/executors/administrators, legal representatives successors and assigns by these presents: Whereas a demand was raised by the commissioner of central excise, shillong against the order-in-Original No. V(4)/41 Demands/Bur/98/262 dated 7.3.2000 for Rs. 102.5 lakhs, in connection with availment of duty exemption under Notification 32/99 CE dated 8.7.1999 against our sister concern M/s. Shree Sai Megha alloys (P.) Ltd., a private limited company, having central excise registration No. AAFCS7257R-XM-001). 102.5 lakhs, in connection with availment of duty exemption under Notification 32/99 CE dated 8.7.1999 against our sister concern M/s. Shree Sai Megha alloys (P.) Ltd., a private limited company, having central excise registration No. AAFCS7257R-XM-001). Whereas the company preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench, vide WP(C) No. 3234/2002 challenging the constitutional validity of the Notification No. 32/99 and the company succeeds the writ petition by order dated 25.12.2002. The Central Excise department preferred a revision petition before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Revision Petition No. 7. WP(C) No. 67(SH) 2000 of 2003, which is subjudice. Whereas M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys (P.) Ltd., desires to close down the manufacturing unit of M.S. Ingot and to surrender the Central Excise Registration Certificate No. AAFCS7257R-XM-001) as registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Whereas the final hearing is subjudice before the hon'ble Gauhati High Court the amount of demand and interest, if any, is not ascertainable at this time and contingent for which the obligors executive this Corporate Guarantee by way of Bond in favour of the President of India. And whereas the obligor(s) has furnish such guarantee by depositing with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, the corporate guarantee as aforementioned. And therefore, if all the dues whether Excise Duty or lawful charges which shall be demandable on the basis of the order of the hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the revision petition and or the order of any higher Appellate court be duly paid by the obligor(s) in the treasury to the account of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue by TR-6 Challan along with interest if any, within such period as mentioned in the order of demand by the commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. Otherwise, and on breach or failure in the performance of any part of these conditions, the same shall be in full force and virtue by recovery of the amount demanded as per the law as enforced in the Central Excise Act, 1944. We further declare that this corporate guarantee is given for the performance of the enact in which the public are interested. 11. Aperusal of the contents of the Bond extracted above indicates that the Petitioner-company acknowledges the fact that a sum of Rs. We further declare that this corporate guarantee is given for the performance of the enact in which the public are interested. 11. Aperusal of the contents of the Bond extracted above indicates that the Petitioner-company acknowledges the fact that a sum of Rs. 102.5 lakhs is lying outstanding against M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys, for which a demand for payment has been raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong; that the Central Excise Department preferred a revision petition (writ appeal) against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 67(SH) of 2000 and that M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys, desirous of closing down the manufacturing unit of M.S. Ingot, had prayed for surrender of its Central Excise Registration Certificate; that the case pending before a court of law was yet to be finally heard and the amount and interest payable could not yet, ipso facto, be ascertained, for which the Petitioner-company was called upon to execute, and has executed-, the Bond in favour of the President of India. The Bond accordingly requires the Petitioner-company to satisfy all dues, be it excise duty or lawful charges, which shall be demandable on the basis of the order of this Court or the order of any higher appellate court as and when demanded by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. At this stage, I am constrained to observe that the Respondent-authorities should have engaged a more competent draftsman to prepare the Corporate Bond for the sake of clarity. Anyway, to return to the subject, I am unable to understand under what provision of law the corporate bond has been executed, and for what purpose. It is not the case of the Respondent-authorities that the corporate bond was executed by the Petitioner-company in connection with any deposit or sums payable under Section 35F of the Act. There is thus considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-company that the corporate bond was executed by the Petitioner-company for one and one purpose only, namely, to satisfy the existing Excise Duty payable by the M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys to the Central Government should the company stand de-registered. 12. There is thus considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-company that the corporate bond was executed by the Petitioner-company for one and one purpose only, namely, to satisfy the existing Excise Duty payable by the M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys to the Central Government should the company stand de-registered. 12. It is the common ground of the parties that M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys had filed an application under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ('the Rules') read with Clause (1)(6) of the Notifications under the Central Excise Rules for de-registration. This Clause provides that every registered person who ceases to carry on the operation for which he is registered, shall de-register himself by making a declaration in the form specified in Annexure-III and deposit his registration certificate with the Superintendent of Central Excise. In my opinion, the contents of the declaration throw light on the purpose of executing the corporate guarantee bond by the Petitioner-company. In the application for de-registration/surrender of Registration Certificate at Annexure-III, there is a declaration to be made by the applicant-company that duty has been paid in respect of all excisable goods manufactured and remaining in the factory, which are liable to duty and that there is no government due pending against them and further that there is no demand pending against them under the Central Excise Act, 1944, (1 of 1944) and rule made there under as on the date of filing an application for de-registration/surrender of the Registration Certificate. In my opinion, de-registration can be allowed only if there is no government due/demand/excise duty pending against the applicant at the time of filing such an application. In the instant case, when the questions as to whether any excise duty is owed by the applicant-company to the Central Government and, if so, how much, are yet to be determined by this Court, the Respondent-authorities thought it fit to require the Petitioner to execute the said corporate bond to guarantee the payment of the liability of the applicant-company in respect of the Excise Duty due in the event of the de-registration of the latter. It is another matter that the surrender of registration certificate by the applicant-company was not accepted by the Respondent-authorities. It is another matter that the surrender of registration certificate by the applicant-company was not accepted by the Respondent-authorities. If the application for de-registration were accepted by the Respondent-authorities, the Petitioner-company would have become liable to satisfy all the dues of the applicant-company in terms of the said Corporate Guarantee Bond. However, if the surrender of certificate is not accepted by the Respondent-authorities, as is the case here, the question of invoking the said Corporate Bond by the Respondent-authorities cannot and does not arise for the simple reason that there is no specific Clause to that effect in the Bond. Secondly, which is more important, such liability can be satisfied by the applicant-company itself, which is still in existence. 13. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The law is now well-settled without reference to cases that the power to deprive a person of his property can be exercised only by authority of law, and not by mere executive fiat or order. Article 162, being subject to other constitutional provisions is necessarily subject to article 300-A; the word "law" in the context of Article 300-A must mean an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature, a rule or a statutory order, having the force of law, that is, a positive or States made law see Bishambar Dayal Chanara Mohan v. State of U.P. (1982) 1 SCC 39 . It is, however, contended by Mr. R. Debnath, the learned Counsel for the Revenue, that M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys is the parent unit of "SAIJI" group of industries, and has stopped production in its unit by taking advantage of the Notification at Annexure-F and started production of the same items through its other sister concern, namely, Ms. Sai Smelter Unit-I to grab government revenues. According to the learned Counsel, there was no reason to close down the parent unit when there is demand for the goods in the market. This contention is refuted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by asserting that the Petitioner-company and M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys are separate legal entities and have no mutuality of interest inasmuch as they have separate registration numbers in the Excise Department and are recognized as separate assesses. 14. This contention is refuted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by asserting that the Petitioner-company and M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys are separate legal entities and have no mutuality of interest inasmuch as they have separate registration numbers in the Excise Department and are recognized as separate assesses. 14. The question whether there is interdependence and whether another unit is, in fact, a dummy has to be adjudicated on the facts of each case. There cannot be any generalization or rule of universal application. Two basic features which prima facie show interdependence or mutuality of interest are pervasive financial control and management control see CCE v. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (2004) 7 SCC 569 . In the instant case, the Respondent authorities, apart from making general allegations, have not come forward with factual data to establish that the Petitioner-company is a sister concern or the front company of M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloys. Again, Article 265 of Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Any compulsory exaction of money by the Government amounts to imposition of tax which is not permissible except by or under the authority of a statutory provision. A taxing statute is to be strictly construed, and in a fiscal legislation, a transaction cannot be taxed on any doctrine of "the substance of the mater" as distinguished from its legal signification, for a subject is not liable to tax on supposed "spirit of the law" or "by inference or by analogy". It is not the function of this Court to give to words a strained and unnatural meaning to cover loopholes through which the evasive tax-payer may find escape or to tax transactions which, had the Legislature thought of them, would have been covered by appropriate words. The statement of LORD SIMON instantly comes to mind: "It may seem hard that a cunningly advised tax-payer should be able to avoid what appears to be his equitable share of the general fiscal burden and cost it on the shoulders of his fellow citizens. But for the courts to try to stretch the law to meet hard cases (whether the hardship appears to bear on the individual tax-payer or on the general body of tax-payers as represented by the Inland Revenue) is not merely to make bad law but to run the risk of subverting the rule of law". But for the courts to try to stretch the law to meet hard cases (whether the hardship appears to bear on the individual tax-payer or on the general body of tax-payers as represented by the Inland Revenue) is not merely to make bad law but to run the risk of subverting the rule of law". In the view that I have taken, I am constrained to hold that the Respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily and illegally in not refunding Rs. 22,05,990 to the Petitioner-company. 15. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The Respondent-authorities are accordingly directed to refund Rs. 22,05,990 to the Petitioner-company along with admissible interest within forty-five days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs. WP(C)No. 11(SH)/2007 In this writ petition, the Petitioner-company, namely, Shree Sai Smelter (India) Ltd., is also alleged to be one of the units of SAIJI Group of Companies, and the sister concern of M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (P.) Ltd., on which behalf the Petitioner-company executed similar corporate guarantee bond. As already noted in WP(C) No. 10(SH) of 2007, M/s. Shree Sai Megha Alloy (P.) Ltd. owed a sum of Rs. 102.5 lakhs to the Respondent authorities towards excise duty. The Respondent authorities in the same manner in WP(C) No. 10(SH)/2007 refused to refund the excise duty refundable to the Petitioner-company under the Notification No. 32/99 CE dated 8.7.1999 by invoking Section 11 of the Act and/or similar corporate guarantee executed by it. The total amount refundable to the Petitioner-company is Rs. 12,77,186 and Rs. 6,40,125. Upon perusing the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents, the stands taken by them in this writ petition is no different from the stands taken by them in WP(C) No. 10(SH)/2007. No separate questions of fact or of law are thus involved in this writ petition. In other words, this case is squarely governed by my findings and conclusions in WP(C) No. 10(SH) 2007, Resultantly, this writ petition shall also have to be, and is accordingly allowed. The Respondent-authorities are, therefore, directed to refund Rs. 13,77,186 and Rs. 6,40,125 to the Petitioner-company together with the admissible interest within forty-five days of the receipt of this judgment. In other words, this case is squarely governed by my findings and conclusions in WP(C) No. 10(SH) 2007, Resultantly, this writ petition shall also have to be, and is accordingly allowed. The Respondent-authorities are, therefore, directed to refund Rs. 13,77,186 and Rs. 6,40,125 to the Petitioner-company together with the admissible interest within forty-five days of the receipt of this judgment. WP(C) No. 12(SH) of 2007 The Petitioner-company, namely, M/s. Meghalaya Cast and Alloys (P.) Ltd. is also alleged to be the one of the units of SAIJI Group of Companies, as in the afore-stated cases and the related unit of M/s. Pawan Ispat (Meghalaya) (P.) Ltd. As in the foregoing cases, the said M/s. Paswan Ispat (Meghalaya) (P.) Ltd. was alleged to be liable for payment of Central excise duty for a sum of Rs. 43,84,938 as it was not covered by the Notification No. 32/99. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the said Paswan Ispat, but by the common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 224/2003 (already noted earlier), the appeal of the Revenue, was allowed holding that it was not entitled to excise duty exemption. A sum of Rs. 43,84,938 was sought to be recovered from the Petitioner-company payable by the Paswan Ispat. The excise duty so payable by the Paswan Ispat comes to Rs. 43,84,938. As in the earlier cases, the Respondent-authorities refused to refund a sum of Rs. 17,20,317 to the Petitioner-company, which is refundable in terms of the Notification No. 32/99, on the ground that the same was adjusted against the said excise duty owed by Paswan Ispat by invoking Section 11 of the Act and the corporate guarantee executed by the Petitioner-company. On examining the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent authorities, I am of the view that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner-company is the sister concern of M/s. Paswan Ispat (Meghalaya) (P.) Ltd. and that the stand taken by the Respondent authorities do not warrant invoking either Section 11 of the Act or the corporate guarantee bond, which are in the same terms as in the foregoing cases, executed by the Petitioner-company. Consequently, my findings and conclusions in the earljjer cases will govern this writ petition. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to release Rs. Consequently, my findings and conclusions in the earljjer cases will govern this writ petition. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to release Rs. 17,20,317 to the Petitioner-company together with the admissible interest within forty-five days of the receipt of this judgment. WP(C) No. 13(SH)/2007 As in the foregoing cases, the Petitioner-company, namely Paswan Castings (Meghalaya) (P.) Ltd. is alleged to be the sister concern of M/s. Paswan Ispat (Meghalaya) (P.) Ltd. which was liable to pay Central Excise Duty to the order of Rs. 43,84,938. As already noted earlier, when the Division Bench of this Court in the same judgment allowed the appeal of the Revenue and held that it was not entitled to excise duty exemption, a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 refundable to the Petitioner-company by way of excise duty exemption, was sought to be appropriated by the Revenue for recovery of the said excise duty owed by Paswan Ispat by invoking Section 12 of the Act and the corporate guarantee bond executed by the Petitioner-company. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent authorities discloses that there is no substantial difference between the stands taken by them therein and those in the preceding case. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner-company is the sister concern of Paswan Ispat or that either Section 12 of the Act or the corporate guarantee bond executed by the Petitioner-company are applicable on the facts of this case. Consequently, I hold that the Petitioner-company is entitled to refund of Rs. 3,10,377 retained by the Respondent authorities. Resultantly, the Respondent-authorities are directed to release Rs. 3,10,377 to the Petitioner-company together with the balance excess amount of the previous month along with the admissible interest within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this judgment.