9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate, for the Respondents. ORDER The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam I Division sanctioned a sum of ₹ 74,624.42 while considering two claims for refund of duty totaling ₹ 1,31,257.30 filed by the respondent M/s. Andhra Asphalt (P) Ltd., in respect of excisable goods during the period 1-4-1982 to 2-2-1983 and 12-2-1983 to 31-3-1983. The rest of the claim was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of refund actually sanctioned had not been passed on to the buyers from whom the respondent "had collected the duty. The Collector (Appeals) held that in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in D. Cawasji and Co. case, "a refund due to an assessee, who has paid the duty erroneously, cannot be denied merely on the ground that the assessee had collected it from his customers and has no intention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefor under Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962". This was done by the Court even while according leave to withdraw the appeal to Miles India Limited against an order of this Tribunal (Delhi Bench). Though in the present case, we are considering a claim for refund of excise d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtra jurisdiction under Article 226/Article 32 of the Constitution. Not all the Courts are of the same view regarding unjust enrichment. Be it as it may, that it is a factor being kept in view by the High Courts/Supreme Court in again in the context of tariff classification of another product viz. basic was exercising writ jurisdiction does not lead to an inference that such a consideration has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
