9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal has been filed by M/s. Malwi Ship Breaking Co., against the Order-in-Original No. BVR/400/98, dt. 17-6-98 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhavnagar. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 to 81 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed refund claim for Rs. 82,867/- on some Custom matter, which was adjusted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation arising out of CEGAT s order. On the present refund claim, they were served with show cause notice proposing to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund established u/s 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order held that the appellants have failed to prove that they have not passed on the incidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed to be executed before finalising the appeal. The relevant appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide Order No. l776/96/WRB, dt. 3-3-97 and there remains no outstanding dues against the appellants. Therefore, the bank guarantee was released by discharging the part of pre-deposit without objection and balance of Rs. 82,867/- credited to the CWF. Since the whole demand of Rs. 2,78,402.02 has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a demand of Rs. 2,78,402/- outstanding against the appellants, the said refund was adjusted against this demand. The appellants have agitated the matter before the appellate authority and then to CEGAT, the CEGAT while deciding stay application, considered the amount adjusted against demand as compliance of pre-deposit condition also asking them to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 1.5 lacs. The CEGA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on anything which is not duty. Moreover, the refund was earlier sanctioned by the lower authority and adjusted against the demand, when the entire demand has been set aside by the Tribunal, there is no logic to retain the amount adjusted against such demand. The principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable in this case and the appellants are entitled for cash refund of the disputed amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
