9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sugar during the months of May and June 1998 as per the provisions of Notification No. 160/88 dated 3-5-88. The rebate claim was sanctioned and paid to the appellants on 7-12-1988. 2. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 13-2-1989 calling upon them to show cause as to why the rebate claim erroneously granted and paid to them should not be recovered under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the appellants did not file the Classification list claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 160/88 dated 3-5-88. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his Order-in-Original No. 93/89 dated 3-4-1989 confirmed the demand. 4. Appellants paid the amount under protest and filed an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/88 dated 3-5-1988 allows rebate of excise duty on excess production of sugar, the same is in the nature of incentive to the producer and there is no question of passing on the same to the buyer and consequently, the principle of unjust enrichment can not have any application in such cases. 11. Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing for Revenue contends that the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable to all cases as the law has been amended with retrospective effect and does not make any exception whatsoever. Therefore, he supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the earlier order of the Additional Commissioner sanctioning rebate to the appellants. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t understood from where the Additional Commissioner gets the authority to pass another order on the same issue which has been subsequently reviewed by the Commissioner giving rise to the impugned order-in-appeal, which is in appeal before us. In the said order of the Additional Commissioner, he himself notes that the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not reviewed in the Commissionerate office and therefore, the earlier order of the appeal had become final and since the same had clearly allowed the appeal of the appellants the amount became payable to them without requiring further adjudication. In any case, in the said order in appeal dated 27-9-1995, the Commissioner (Appeals) having dis-allowed the very basis of the subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
