9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months i.e. 14-11-95 to 18-1-96. He has held that the relevant date for the purpose of refund claim is the date of payment of duty. He has also held that in the present case the appellants have not passed on the incidence of duty to their customers and hence the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The original authority had rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants under Section 11B(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944 on the ground that duty in the present case was paid during the period from 7-6-95 to 18-1-96 and the refund claim was filed on 7-8-96 and hence the same was beyond the six months time limited laid down under Section 11B. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing narrow woven fabrics af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the appellants have not passed on the burden of duty to their customers. He has however held that the relevant date for reckoning the period of six months for the purpose of filing the refund claim is the date of payment of duty. In fact in this case, they had to pay the duty on a clear direction from the department and aggrieved by that direction they moved the Commissioner (Appeals). It was after the outcome of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), they came to know that they are not finally required to pay duty and accordingly they filed refund claim. Therefore, the relevant date in their case is the date of knowledge which in the present case is on receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no market, that the goods manufactured according to customers specifications can be used only by the customer in the manufacture of garments which are subsequently marketed and that since the goods are not traded the brand name provisions will not apply. In this case the appellants came to know that they were not required to pay duty only after the receipt of the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the relevant date for the purpose of reckoning the time-limit of six months starts from the date of knowledge that is the date of receipt of the order of the competent authority viz. the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted that the date of filing of the refund claim was 13-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
