9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given proof of such payment. An appeal was filed by the appellants against this order before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, and that authority rejected the appeal on two grounds: (a) The provisions of a notification cannot be forced upon a manufacturer if he does not avail of such provision of his own choice. In the present case, the appellants had paid duty on their own volition; and (b) It is a well settled principle that where duties have been collected and paid to the Exchequer properly, the same cannot be refunded if the benefit does not pass on to the consumer. 2. Before us, the learned representative for the appellants points out that on 30-11-83, the appellants filed a declaration with the Department indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for refund on 31-8-84 well within the period laid down in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the first clearance having taken place on 13-3-84. The learned representative for the appellants drew our attention to a decision of this Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Andhra Asphalt (P) Ltd. [Appeal No. E-152/83 (MAS) dated 9.7.85] 1985 (22) E.L.T. 539 (Tribunal), wherein it has been held that the theory of unjust enrichment finds no place in dealing with a claim for refund of duty under Sec. 11B of the Act. He also referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. v. M.K. Chipker and others - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 334 (Bom.). 3. The learned Departmental Represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the financial year 1983-84 but found themselves in trouble due to non-supply of safety valves by the customers, resulting in the lower production and clearances on payment of duty. 5. We have already dealt with the theory of unjust enrichment. In our order dated 9-7-85 in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Asphalt (P) Ltd., Visakhapatnam - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 539 (Tribunal). As we have noticed therein a factor kept in view by the High Courts and the Supreme Court in exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution cannot be imported in dealing with a regular claim for refund of duty under Sec. 11B of the Act. (We have also noted that even in the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
