9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty had been paid twice on the same molasses. The show cause notice states that the first time this duty was said to have been paid by the party according to the orders of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut vide order dated 9-8-1984 for Rs. 39,344.04, T.C. No. 11 dated 27-11-1984, and further sum of Rs. 35,782.86 had been debited by PLA Entry No. 800, dated 15-10-1990 in terms of the Additional Collector s order dated 31-5-1988. Thus, a total amount of 75,126.90 said to have been paid on 22,880.54 qtl. of molasses. For the second time duty paid on these 22,880.54 qtl. were cleared during the period 23.10.1990 to 18-6-1992 to the extent of Rs. 3,56,004.90 which was again paid. 3. It was contended in reply to the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er further payment of the duty for the second time. He has held that there is no mention to this effect on any of these gate passes which prove that the duty has been paid again on the molasses cleared under these gate passes. So, in the absence of co-relation, the Assistant Collector has held that the refund claim of the party cannot be examined or entertained and is liable for rejection. He has also held that the duty paid on the molasses has been recovered from the customers as admitted by the assessee and hence the refund cannot be made on the ground of unjust enrichment in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has also negatived the contention of the assessee that the duty paid in terms of the Additional Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the Collector s finding recorded in the impugned order. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the Learned Advocate, I do not find any substance in his plea. The duty has been paid on the first occasion in terms of the adjudication order. Therefore, the plea that such deposit had been made under protest is not at all sustainable. Further even as per the assessee, the protest letter is said to have been filed on 19-10-1990, while the payment has been made in terms of the adjudication order dated 9-8-1984 and 31-5-1988 vide Treasury Challan No. 11, dated 27-11-1984 and vide PLA Entry No. 800, dated 15-10-1990. Therefore this letter dated 19-10-1990 said to be a protest letter cannot be considered as a protest le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpossible to think that the same molasses stored during the period 1978-79 and 1980-82 would have been cleared in 1990-92. The facts are totally incorrect and the assessee is trying to confuse the issues while attempting to claim refund for reasons best known to them. It is also noticed that the duty for the second time paid during this period was said to be more than Rs. 3,56,004.90 as per the reply dated 29-6-1992 to the show cause notice. Therefore, the Assistant Collector has rightly held that there is no co-relation between these payments and the refund claim and the clearance made by the assessee. The Assistant Collector and the Collector have rightly held that the assessee has no case for refund both on time bar, and on unjust enrich ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
