JUDGMENT
J.N. Bhatt, J.
1. The challenge in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is against the virus and legality of the provisions of Section 30 of 1983 Cotton, Copra and Vegetable Oils [ Cess Abolition] Act [ 4 of 1987], [ Act] interalia contending that the abolition of the said levy was pronounced in course of the budget speech of the Hon’ble Minister of Finance on 28.2.1986, while moving proposal of the budget for the financial year 1986-87. The relevant announcement made by the Finance Minister is reproduced in para-3 in terms of the paragraph 151 of the Finance Bill. It is further contended that no cess on this account may be collected with effect from 01.4.1984 in view of the instructions issued by the concerned department and the competent authority which is placed at Annexure “A”. Despite that a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner in November 1986 under Section 3 of the Vegetable Oils Cess Act 1983 read with Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requiring to pay a sum of Rs. 29,039.50 paisa as oil cess on the oil produced by it for the period from 1.4.1986 to 31.10.1986. Consequently, by a corrigendum, it was came to be amended and the claim was restricted to Rs.22,802.90 paisa for the said period.
2. Such claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division I. The main challenge against the said order and the vires of the said provision is based on the doctrine of representation and the promise given in the Parliament. The resultant refund is also claimed.
3. The challenge in this petition has been answered by this Court in a Division Bench judgment in Special Civil Application No. 653 of 1987 [ petitioner’s sister concern] Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s B.K. Industries and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2123, obviously, therefore, when the highest Court has upheld the vires, no question of refund arise. In our opinion, therefore the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, this petition shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly.