2002 (10) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on Notification No. 1/93-CE and subsequent amendments; Applicability of time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; Principle of unjust enrichment in refund claims.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by M/s. Dynamic Laminates (India) Ltd. under Order-in-Appeal No. 168/CE/CHD-I/2002. The Appellants argued that they were registered with the DGTD and did not avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE until its amendment by Notification No. 125/94-CE. They claimed a refund for excise duty for a specific period, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner citing exceeding clearances over Rs. 75 lakhs and time limit issues under Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the Appellants did not claim exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for the financial year 1994-95. The Appellants contended that they were required to pay duty at the full rate from the beginning of the financial year, and the duty paid before availing the SSI Notification should not be added for arriving at the exempted goods value.

The arguments presented by both sides were considered. The Revenue acknowledged that the Appellants were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE before its amendment in 1994. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants became entitled to the SSI Notification only after the amendment and had not immediately noticed this change. Therefore, it was held that they had not exercised the option to not avail of the exemption at the beginning of the financial year. The decision in the case of Uttam Industries v. C.C.E, cited by the Revenue, was deemed inapplicable. It was also clarified that the Appellants had not filed a C/List after the amendment, and the principles from the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. were not relevant due to the absence of adjudication by the Department. The Tribunal ruled that the refund claim was valid, subject to considerations of unjust enrichment and time limit. As the aspect of unjust enrichment was not raised in the Show-cause Notice, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for further examination with a fair hearing opportunity provided to the Appellants.