9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 - Appellants clearly admitted the fact that there was a need for appropriate application under Section 11BB of the Act to claim refund and it was accordingly filed by the appellants on 03.05.2001 - Consequently, the refund was granted on 19.07.2011 within a period of three months from the date of the said application. Thus the contention that there was delay in refunding the amount does not appear to be correct. - E/2013 of 2005 - 452/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 20-4-2011 - Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Respondent : [Rep. by Ms. Monica Batra, DR] Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: None present for the appellants though served. Heard the DR for the respondents. 2. We have heard the DR and perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty to Rs. 50000/- and held that since the India Made Foreign Liquor is not excisable product nor a final product and the Rule 57CC relates to the final product as exempt or chargeable to Nil rate of duty it covered only excisable product and not the non-excisable product and it was applicable to rectified spirit, therefore, an amount of 8% of the value of the rectified spirit was reversible. Consequently, the appellants filed refund claim for Rs. 12,97,747/- under letter dated 3.05.2011 which was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bareilly on 08.05.2011. The refund claim of the appellants was thereafter allowed by the Deputy Commissioner under order dated 19.07.2011. 4. The appellants under letter dated 10.10.2001 made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd under Rule 57CC which is not a payment of Central Excise duty there was no question of duty burden to be passed on to any other persons and hence the provision of unjust enrichment was not invoked at all". 5. The DR submitted that considering the provisions of Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 it cannot be said that the refund of the amount paid in terms of the said provision of law cannot be equated with the refund of the Central Excise duty and, therefore, question of payment of interest does not arise. She has drawn our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Pushpaman Forgings vs. CCE, Mumbai-VII reported in 2002 (149) ELT 490 (Tri.) Pure Helium (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-III reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain amount for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of duty that itself cannot amount to categorized such payment as duty under the said Act. Besides, as rightly observed by the authorities below in case of refund of duty amount, the statutory provisions as well as judicial pronouncement clearly makes it obligatory for the statutory authorities to ensure that such refund does not result in unjust enrichment to the claimant. Being so, in case of refund of duty, the authority has to ascertain whether the burden of the duty has been passed on to the consumer. As far as the refund in relation to Rule 57CC is concerned certainly this principle is not invokable and, therefore, question of considering the amount payable in terms there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
