9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory. The appellant discharged duty liability during June to August, 2011 when the goods were cleared from the factory and that is the legal discharge of duty. The subsequent payment, made erroneously, is not a payment of duty and the obligation to pay duty has already been fulfilled. Therefore, it is the second payment which needs to be considered for refund which the appellate authority has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by mistake on the ground that duty liability can be recovered only once on clearances of the goods and therefore, if duty is paid by mistake second time, refund should be of the payment of duty made wrongly the second time and the question of unjust enrichment would not arise as the appellant has not recovered duty from the customers. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount eligible for refund. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The claim for refund would arise only when excess payment of duty is made. In the present case, refund of duty has arisen when the payment was made the second time when the goods were cleared from the depot. The liability to pay excise duty arises when the goods are cleared from the factory. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the question of unjust enrichment would not arise at all. On a similar matter, in the case of Cipla Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 696, this Tribunal had occasion to consider refund of duty when duty was paid twice and in that case, the refund was allowed holding that the question of unjust enrichment will not apply when duty is paid twice but recovered only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
