9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d certain goods and warehoused the same on 27-12-1982 followed by rewarehousing in another warehouse. The goods were cleared by the appellants in two lots on 12-11-1986 and 15-11-1986 after payment of duty due and of interest, which had been imposed for the first time vide Notification No. 143/83-Cus., dated 13-5-1983. The interest was, however, paid @ 18%. Later on, it was found that the rate of interest was 12%. Accordingly, the appellant got a refund of Rs. 2,37,244.78. 1.1 On receipt of a further clarification that no interest was chargeable at all because the goods had been warehoused in 1982 prior to levy of interest in May, 1983, the appellants applied for refund of balance interest of Rs. 4,74,489.52 on 20-2-1989. 1.2 After seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead of six months as spelt under Section 27, was legally wrong. 1.4 The Collector (Appeals) has accepted the aforesaid ground of appeal advanced by Revenue, relying on Apex Court s judgment in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 [Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd.]. In view of the said holding, the Collector (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority in the light of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act 1991. 1.5 It is against the aforesaid order that appeal has been filed by the appellants before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. DGM, Shri R. Santhnam for the assessee-applicant in the Miscellaneous Application, submits that the Tribunal has upheld the question of considering unjust enrichment with regard to refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied and to the extent it is sustained. 3.2 Plea now raised by the ld. DGM for the assessee is that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise in the present case because the imported goods are consumable material and have been used captively by the importer. The point can be taken by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner concerned to whom the matter has now been remanded on the limited aspect of considering the question of unjust enrichment regarding grant of refund of duty on the imported goods. Therefore, the mistake pointed in the said Miscellaneous Application does not arise out of the impugned order and is not apparent from the record. It is, therefore, dismissed. 4. As regards the Reference Application made by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
