9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, 1979 to January, 1983 The Appellants got certain paints manufactured on a job work basis from M/s Ansuya Packing Services, Palghar (the job worker). The raw materials were supplied by the Appellants and the job worker was paid only job charges. On completion the job worker stock transferred the paints to the Appellants' branches/ depots for subsequent sale. 2 19-8-1983 The Assistant Commissioner in charge of the job worker's factory passed an order against the job worker demanding duty of Rs. 18,25,938.77 for the period March, 1979, to January, 1983 in respect of the paints manufactured by them on the job work basis that the Appellants. 3 The job worker filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 4 19-9-83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise (Appeals) rejected this job workers appeal on the ground that the essential duty was paid by the Appellants and that it was the Appellants who should have filed a refund claim. 14 13-7-1999 In view of the findings of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the Appellants filed a refund claim for the amount paid by them under protest. 15 26-11-1999 By an ex-parte order the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the amount had already been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 16 28-2-2000 The Appellants filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 17 29-2-2000 The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that there was no appealab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 23-7-2001 The Assistant Commissioner once again return the refund claim. 28 10-12-2001 After seeking legal advice, the Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 5864/01. 29 28-1-2002 13-2-2002 12-4-2002 The High Court passed an order recording that the Respondents directing the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to accept that the order dated 23-7-2001 was an appealable order. The Appellate authority was requested to consider the appeal and application for condonation of delay taking into account the pendency of the petition in the court had to decide within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 30 26-4-2002 The Appellants filed their appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) 31 1-7-2002 Writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds that the amount deposited by the appellant is clearly evidenced from the TR-6 Challan and the payment was made by appellants vide their cheque No. 453636, dated 19-9-83. Since the duty is not payable and the said amount has been paid by the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to refund of the said amount. 3. The ld. SDR appearing for the department states that even though refund can be claimed by a person other than manufacturer-assessee the same is subject to bar of unjust enrichment. He also states that the amount has already been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and it is not possible therefore, to pay the refund amount to the Appellants. We find that appellants have sold the goods at the same pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
