9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Notification 201/79, the right to benefit after rescission of the notification, refund provisions, unjust enrichment, and the applicability of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Interpretation of Notification 201/79: The Collector (Appeals) held that the right to benefit under Notification 201/79 remained intact even after its rescission, based on previous Tribunal decisions. The appeals argued that no refund provision existed under the notification, emphasizing Para 9(b) which stated no credit shall be refunded in cash or by cheque. Right to Benefit Post-Rescission: The respondents contended that the rescission of the notification did not nullify their accrued rights during its validity period, especially as they were prevented from utilizing the credit due to the Department's actions. They argued that the rescission should not affect past rights acquired. Refund and Unjust Enrichment: The appeals raised concerns about unjust enrichment and the applicability of Section 11B(2) regarding refund provisions. The respondents argued that the refund should be payable to them as per proviso (c) of Sub-Section (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal found that the respondents were justified in claiming the benefit of Notification 201/79, despite its rescission, due to the Department's initial refusal and subsequent delays. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's actions prevented the respondents from utilizing the credit, entitling them to the benefit even post-rescission. The judgment aligned with previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's stance on similar cases, dismissing the appeals and upholding the Collector (Appeals) decision.
|
