9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. had come in appeal against the order of rejection of their refund claim of the duty paid second time on the clearance of sugar after reprocessing. 2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that the appellants had applied for bringing the duty paid sugar for the purpose of reprocessing from their godown in Lucknow under Rule 173H of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed application to refund the claim on 25-1-1996 which was received by the Asstt. Collector on 30-1-1996 for the duty paid by them second time while clearing the sugar after reprocessing. He submits that there is no time limit prescribed either under Rule 173H or under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for refunding the duty when the reprocessing is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the refund claimed by them in January, 1996 was hit by time limit as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 4. I have heard both sides and considered the submissions made by both sides. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the permission was granted to the appellants for reprocessing of sugar under Rule 173H and not under 173L. Once permission has been granted under Rule 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d twice and the appellants are eligible to claim refund if otherwise admissible as per the law. It is also observed that the question of unjust enrichment as per provisions of Section 11B will not be applicable as the appellants have paid duty twice on the quantity of sugar in question. Accordingly the matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for considering the refund of the duty paid sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
