9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d revision of prices, the Respondents collect only the appropriate duty from the oil companies and not the higher duty which they had paid to the Government. This clearly indicates that there is no unjust enrichment. Thus, rejection of refund claim on account of time bar and unjust enrichment cannot be sustained. There is no merit in the Revenue s appeals. Hence the same are rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per sub section (1) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, any person claiming refund of duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of one year from relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence [including the documents referred to in Section 12A] as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the; incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. In the instant case, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad [Final Order No. 324 & 325/2006 dated 15-2-2006, 2006 (199) E.L.T. 155 (T) passed by the Tribunal's Bangalore Bench] (c) Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [1997 (95) E.L.T. 386 (T)] (d) Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. U.O.I. & Ors. [1987 (30) E.L.T. 71 (Bombay)] (e) Pre-stressed concrete Poles v. CCE, Chandigarh [1998 (102) E.L.T. 237 (T)] (f) Asiatic Oxygen & Acetylene Co. Ltd. v. CCE, lndore [2000 (117) E.L.T. 597] (g) Indo Flogates Ltd., v. CCE Bhubaneswar [2001 (135) E.L.T. 619] (h) Orient Pre-Stressed products (P) Ltrd. v. CCE Allahabad [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1181 (T)] (i) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad [1986 (25) E.L.T. 867 (S.C.)] (j) Utkal Polyweave Industries (P) Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are relevant. It is pertinent to note that when there is upward revision, the Respondent has to pay the differential duty to the Government. As regards the question of unjust enrichment, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly given a finding that even though the Respondents pay high duty, the actual bill is settled only on the correct price finalized. In other words, when there is downward revision of prices, the Respondents collect only the appropriate duty from the oil companies and not the higher duty which they had paid to the Government. This clearly indicates that there is no unjust enrichment. In these circumstances, rejection of refund claim on account of time bar and unjust enrichment cannot be sustained. There is no merit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
