9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fare Fund in terms of Section 11B of the Act. 2. Heard Shri A. Kuppuswamy, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri S. Kannan, learned DR. 3. The learned Consultant submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court of India vide their order dated 18th December, 1989 for Civil Appeal No. 865 of 1986 had set aside the order of the CEGAT and held that the appellants were entitled to the refund of the amounts along with interest. The appellants were also ordered to be paid interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of refusal of refund. On a representation being made for honouring the said order of the Hon ble Apex Court, the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim of Rs. 19,22,471/- inclusive of the interest at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable by the Court of Law prior to the coming into force of amended Section 11B regarding unjust enrichment shall not hit the provisions of Section 11B(2) or 11B(3), they would have meant reviewing the orders of the Court itself. The learned Consultant submits that in the subject case, the facts are exactly the same and therefore, the order impugned errs in applying Section 11B(2) and 11B(3), which is against the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries cited supra. The learned consultant further cites that this principle was again considered later by the Tribunal in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 669 (T), wherein it was held that the Tribunal s order at allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly shows that the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the present appellants were entitled to refund of the full amount along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum for the period for which the refund was not given. This language in the Hon ble Apex Court s order clearly shows that the Hon ble Court required that the actual amount should be paid back to the appellants along with interest as indicated therein. We further find that the question of applicability of amended Section of 11B particularly sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof to refund was already considered at length by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries cited supra, wherein it had been clearly held that when there was an order emanating from a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
