9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Appellants, being registered with the DGTD, were not availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE, dated 28-2-93; that after the amendment of the said Notification by Notification No. 125/94-CE, dated 31-8-94 they became eligible to claim the benefit of Notification No. 1/93; that as the amendment was not noticed by them, they did not avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93; that they filed a claim for the refund of excise duty on 9-8-85 for the period from 7-2-95 to 31-3-95; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order No. 77/95, dated 1-12-95 rejected their refund claim on the ground that Notification exempted goods up to the aggregate value of first clearance of Rs. 75 lakhs and they had already effected clearance exceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they could not make detailed submission. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer so that the said aspect could be examined by him. 3. Countering the arguments, Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned SDR, submitted that the decision in the case of Watts Electronics has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of Uttam Industries v. C.C.E, New Delhi, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 948 (T) wherein it has been held that once a manufacturer exercises the option for not availing of the benefit of the exemption contained in the Notification, he has to pay duty at the rate applicable on all subsequent clearances; that as the Appellant continued to pay duty at full rate, they had opted for not availi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not claiming the benefit under the amended Notification. For the reason, the ratio in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. will also not apply, as there was no adjudication by the Department. It is also well settled that the benefit of an exemption Notification can be claimed subsequently. We, therefore, hold that the refund claim is available to the appellants subject to applicability of principles of unjust enrichment and time limit. The learned Advocate has pleaded that as aspect of unjust enrichment was not raised in the Show-cause Notice, the Appellants could not produce the sufficient evidence. We, therefore, remand the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority for considering the question of applicability of principle of un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
