2000 (11) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of a refund directed by the High Court
2. Delay in granting the refund
3. Grounds of unjust enrichment and time bar for rejecting the refund
4. Applicability of Section 11B(1) regarding delay in refund execution
5. Eligibility for refund with interest under Section 11BB

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the rejection of a refund mandated by the High Court, which was required to be paid within three months as per the court's direction. The refund arose from a Tribunal order classifying the product as 'Bars' instead of Strip, Hoops, and Flats during the relevant period.

2. The delay in granting the refund was noted, and it was found to be unjustified since all issues had been settled earlier. The delay was considered unwarranted.

3. The rejection of the refund was based on grounds of unjust enrichment and time bar. The appellant contended that duty was paid under protest, and previous court decisions had favored the refund claim, settling the issue of limitation and unjust enrichment.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Section 11B(1) concerning the delay in executing the refund order. Referring to precedents like the Dalmia Cement case, it was established that the delay in executing the Tribunal order did not constitute a pending proceeding under the amendment to Section 11B.

5. Considering the legal position and precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument to reject the refund based on unjust enrichment. The refund, being eligible under other funds, was directed to be granted with interest as per Section 11BB.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders concerning unjust enrichment and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, emphasizing the rightful eligibility for the refund with interest.