9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were giving cash discount of 1% to the dealers. Duty was paid without reckoning this 1% cash discount. So they claimed return of the excess duty paid, without noting the cash discount. In the first application? the claim was of Rs. 4,25,753/- in relation to the goods cleared during the period 1-3-94 to 31-7-95. The claim to return the amount of Rs. 4,25,753/- was made by application dated 13-12-95. In the second application the amount claimed was Rs. 69,767.19 in relation to the clearances made during November, 1995 and December 1995. Application for the return of the amount was made on 15-2-96. In the third application dated 23-4-96 claim was made for the return of Rs. 47,325.34 in relation to clearance effected during January, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of unjust enrichment, ld. Counsel submitted that in a case, where the duty was p3id on provisional assessment, the question of unjust enrichment will not arise. 3. Application dated 13-12-1995 was for return of a sum of Rs. 4,25,753/- which was paid in relation to the clearances effected during the period from 1-3-1994 to 31-7-1995. Duty paid in relation to clearances made from 1-3-1994 to June 1995 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act, namely; six months. But the payment of duty effected during July 1995 was within six months of the application. So the claim in relation to the duty paid during the month of July 1995 was not barred by limitation as was held by the authorities below. Second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the assessee would not be knowing whether any refund had accrued to them or not. Therefore, it transpires that for all practical purpose, relevant date becomes significant only if the assessment is finalised in terms of Rule 9B(5) and the date of payment of duty in such case would be the date of final adjustment when the entitlement to refund claim would be known and the count down the limitation period of six months would start . This interpretation, we are afraid, is not warranted from Section 11 B of the Act as it stood during the relevant period 1991 to 1998. Rule 93 framed under subordinate legislation cannot over-ride the statutory provision contained in Section 11B. Section 11B as it stood during the relevant period fixed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
