9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asic excise duty and special excise duty as mentioned in this notification in respect of sugar produced in a sugar factory during the period from 1-5-1982 to 30-9-1982, which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years. The quantum of exemption prescribed for free sale sugar was Rs. 40/- per quintal and quantum of exemption prescribed for levy sugar was Rs. 24.5 per quintal. The respondent submitted the rebate claim of amount of Rs. 7,84,395/- for the period from-1-5-1982 to 30-9-1982 in the office of the Superintendent on 29-10-1982, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Asstt. Commissioner in June, 1983. The Assistant Commissioner received rebate claim application on 18-6-1983. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-11-1984. Thus, the total amount sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner was Rs. 7,84,395/-. Against this order of the Commissioner, while the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against appropriation of an amount of Rs. 3,50,053/- against outstanding demand, the department also filed review appeal on the ground that the Asstt. Commissioner's finding on the point of unjust enrichment is not correct and the refund is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 17-5-2005 rejected both the appeals. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order on the ground of unjust enrichment. The mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Kesar Enterprises v. CCE (supra) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is no longer a good law in view of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Sahkari Khand Udyog (supra) and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant, ld. Counsel for the respondent, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and pleaded that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the rabate under Notification No. 132/82-C.E., dated 21-4-1982, that this exemption notification confers the benefit of duty rebate for the sugar manufacturers for excess production of sugar during a period from May to September which is a lean period for product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate Tribunal or any court or any other provision of this Act or the Rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) of Section 11B is a non-obstante clause whose provisions shall have overriding effect. According to the sub-section (2) of Section 11B, except for the exceptions (a) to (f) mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B, in all other cases, the duty amount refundable shall be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Rebate in respect of excess production of sugar during lean season in terms of Notification No. 132/82-C.E. is not mentioned among ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
