9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J.N. Nair, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - This appeal against the Order No. 239/CE/KNP/85, dated nil passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi arises from a rejection of a refund claim filed by the appellants herein for Rs. 1,05,453 in terms of Notification No. 80/80 containing exemptions for specified goods produced by small- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the appellants contended that the only issue here is whether refund could be denied on grounds of unjust enrichment. She pleaded that it cannot be done and argued that it is now well settled by a series of decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts that statutory authorities are bound by the provisions thereof. Section 11B relating to refunds in the Central Excises and Salt Act at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri J.N. Nair, learned DR contended that the High Court of Madras in the case reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 478 and Gujarat in the case reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1763 have clearly held that manufacturer who has not passed on the benefit of exemption to customers, cannot enrich himself by taking refund from the Deptt. He also urged that in terms of Section 3(1) of the amended Section 11B, even ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Alembic Glass Industries v. Union of India - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 232 (Kar.) has held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment being a principal of equity can be invoked only by Courts and not by authorities under the Act. Therefore, the impugned order which relates to a refund claim filed and disposed in 1981, a decade prior to the amendment to Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
