9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed strips, which were contended by them as not amounting to manufacture; that the matter was finally settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court, which had held that the Department had not been able to establish that the process undertaken by them brought into existence in new article; that they had claimed refund of the duty collected by the Department alongwith interest for the period 2-4-1980 to 20-3-1982; that, initially, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority vide Final Order No. 1457/96-NB, dated 30-5-1996; that in de novo proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim vide order dated 26-8-1999; that, however, the Deputy Commissioner declined thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sub-section (2) of Section 11B for the purpose of this Section; that in the present matter, the Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 30-5-96, remanded back the case to decide the issue of unjust enrichment; that the Tribunal had not passed any order of refund within the purview of Section 11BB of the Central Act; that, therefore, the question before the Adjudicating Authority, was to decide the issue involved in the refund case and refund was admissible only after the decision of the case. As such mere direction of the Tribunal for de novo consideration, was not an order in terms of Explanation. He relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India v. Orient Enterprises, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 22 of 1995, there was no right entitling payment of interest on delayed refund under the Customs Act and at the relevant time involved in the said judgment (which was prior to 1995) there was no statutory right entitling the respondents to payment of interest on delayed refund and the Writ Petition filed by them was not for enforcement of the legal right available to them under any statute. The claim for interest was in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention by the appellants of money that was collected from the respondents by way of customs duty, redemption fine and penalty. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Suganmal (supra), a writ petition seeking the relief of payment of interest on delayed refund of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. On appeal, filed by the assessee, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 35/96 remanded the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing. M/s. Steel Strips Ltd. to establish that they had not passed on the incident of duty to any other person in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. From these undisputed facts, it is very much evident that the refund had been found to be sanctionable to the assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was only denied to them on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed, in the impugned order, that even after remand by the Tribunal, the first hearing was given b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
