9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has filed on 10.05.2004. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 11B - refund is not time bar. As regards the jurisdiction issue, since the 100% EOU is under the control of one particular jurisdiction i.e. Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Export Processing Zone, the refund has to be processed by the same jurisdiction as the appellant has no other jurisdiction except the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, EPZ. Therefore the refund could not have been rejected on the point of jurisdiction. As regards the difference in the name of the company, it is the same appellant company whose name was changed as per the authority of certificate issued by the Registrar of Company, Delhi & Haryana. Therefore, it cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed a refund claim on 10.05.2004 for the amount deposited during the investigation. The sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on three grounds. First, the refund was filed after expiry of one year from the relevant date i.e. from the date of payment of duty. Second, the amount of excise duty was not paid with the jurisdictional in charge of the 100% EOU whereas it was paid as excise duty in the Excise Commissionerate and also on the ground that duty was paid by the M/s. Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Ltd. and not by M/s. Mother Diary Foods Processing Ltd., who was the applicant. Third, the refund is hit by unjust enrichment which is applicable in the light of Supreme Court judgment in UO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana. Therefore there is no difference between the company depositing the duty and the company claiming the refund. As regards unjust enrichment, he submits that the appellant is a 100% EOU and 100% goods are exported, therefore the provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable in case of export as per the provision of Section 11B(2) proviso clause (a). 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He placed reliance on the following judgment:- * United Spirit Ltd. 2008 (228) ELT 360 * Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (317) ELT 366 4. We have carefully considered the submission of both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to- (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India;" In the present case, the appellant is a 100% EOU and exporting 100% of their final product. The duty was paid on the furnace oil which was used in the manufacture of exported goods. Therefore, by virtue of above sub-clause (a) the unjust enrichment is not applicable in the fact of the present case. 6. As regards the judgment relied upon by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
