9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89-C has been filed by the Department. Earlier, a stay application filed by the Revenue in Appeal No. E/2068/89-C was dismissed vide Stay Order No. 227/89-C, dated 17-11-1989 in view of the fact that in Order Nos. 552-572/89-C, dated 29-9-1989 in the case of Meghdoot Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal classified (i) paper-based decorative laminated sheets under Heading 4818.90 upto 28-2-1988 and Heading 4823.90 from 1-3-1988, and (ii) paper-based industrial laminated sheets (electrical grade) under Tariff Heading 8546.00, which were also the classification indicated by the Collector (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal No. V-2(48 CETA)2877/88/2478, dated 1-2-1989. For the reasons, stated in the stay order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled an appeal against that order and the same was pending before the Collector (Appeals). He has however, decided this portion of the refund claim for period prior to 30-10-1986 against the respondents without prejudice to the appeal said to have been filed on the earlier rejection. The respondents have not filed any appeal against this part of the impugned order, as a result of which the Collector (Appeals) s order to this extent has become final and we have no materials before us to interfere with this part of the Collector s order. 4. The second part of the refund claim relating to the period from 30-10-1986 to 31-1-1989, which is the subject-matter of the Appeal No. E/3974/89-C, was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Roplas case. 5. The classification of paper-based decorative laminates and paper-based industrial laminated sheets of electric grade was already decided by the Tribunal in Order No. 552 to 572/89-C, dated 29-9-1989 in the case of M/s. Meghdoot Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Others (supra). In that decision, this Tribunal classified paper-based decorative laminated sheets under Heading 4818.90 upto 28-2-1988 and under Heading 4823.90 w.e.f. 1-3-1988. Paper-based industrial laminated sheets were classified by the Tribunal therein under Heading 8546.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. In 1989 (43) E.L.T. 660 (Collector of Central Excise v. Metrowood Engineering Works), the Tribunal held that industrial laminates of paper-base without copper cladding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents as they had recovered such duty from their customers. The Collector (Appeals) has held in the paragraph 8 of the impugned order-in-appeal No. V(CH.39)18-15/89/2342, dated 31-3-1989 that the quasi-judicial authorities functioning under the Central Excise Act did not have the power to deny the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment in the absence of any provision existing in the Central Excise Law authorising such denial. On this point, the learned advocate has cited four decisions of this Tribunal. We observe that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Decora Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot, reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 73 (Tribunal), it was held by the Tribunal that unlike courts of law having extraordinary jurisdiction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 1988 (17) ECR 440 (Calcutta) = 1988 (33) E.L.T. 29 (Cal.) in the case of The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Others v. Madura Coats Ltd. In paragraphs 16 17 of the decision, the Tribunal observed as follows :- 16. However, the controversy does not rest here. The further question that arises for consideration is as to whether the excise authorities or the Tribunal can decline to grant relief on the ground that it would amount to unjust enrichment. In my consideration opinion the law is clear that under the Central Excises Salt Act this Tribunal acting within the statute has no power to deny relief on this ground, if relief is due on the merits of the dispute before it as held by this Tribunal in the case of Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of unjust enrichment nor it has any power to evolve its own scheme for the refund of the amount to the ultimate consumers as done by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid cases. However, it may be observed that it is the high time when the Legislature should step in to check such a fraud on consumers and the society when such a claim is made for the refund of the excise duty which the manufacturers have already recovered from their customers." 7. Following the aforesaid decisions, we also hold that unjust enrichment cannot be a ground for denying refund of duty otherwise due under Section 11-B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
