9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the applicants, the notice of hearing dated 22nd January, 1991 was sent by Registered AD Post to the applicants, listing the miscellaneous application for hearing on 5th March, 1991. Shri R.M. Ramchandani, the learned SDR had appeared on behalf of the respondents and the learned SDR had stated that he had no information in this regard whether the refund has been paid or not and the Bench had directed Shri Ramchandani, the learned SDR to get the report from the Collector and file copy thereof in the Tribunal with a copy to the other side on the next date of hearing and the matter was adjourned to 24th April, 1991. When the matter was again called on 24th April, 1991, Shri Ramchandani, the learned SDR requested for a fortnight s tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue authorities are not interested in implementing the order passed by the Tribunal. During the course of the arguments, he also drew the attention of the Bench lo the fact that in the present matter, there is no unjust enrichment. The applicants had paid the amount from their small meagre resources. He further pleaded that since there is no provision of grant of interest in the Act, the applicants are suffering great losses. The applicants are to pay interest on borrowed capital and no interest is being paid on refund due amount. He also cited the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 (51) E.L.T. 249 (Bom.), where the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had held that where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Collector. To this, Shri Arora fairly stated that no reminder has been sent, as the time from 24th April to 9th May is a very short span. 5. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned Advocate in support of his arguments has referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Caprihans India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 249 (Bom.); paras 4,5 6 which are reproduced below, where the High Court has observed that it is not permissible for the authorities created under the Excise Customs Act to deny relief of refund by resort to doctrine of unjust enrichment. 4. Shri Talyarkhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the order of the Assistant Collector is entirely misco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 23 (New India Industries Ltd. v. Union of India). We direct the Assistant Collector to ignore the decision in Roplas case while ascertaining whether the assessee is entitled to refund and strictly follow the decision of the CEGAT which is referred to hereinabove. 6. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Thane on April 27,1989 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Collector for fresh disposal in view of the decision recorded by CEGAT in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 610. The Assistant Collector is directed to pass final order on the refund application and pay the refund amount on or before Decembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
