2017 (3) TMI 1634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... time-limit provided under Section 11B - refund is not time bar. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - 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. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of mango pulp and exporting the 100% production. They have procured furnace oil under Notification 1/95-C.E. und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected. Therefore appellant are before me. 2. Shri P.K. Shetty, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of settling the issue of demand on furnace oil i.e. from the date of passing of Commissioner (Appeals) order. Moreover the duty was paid under protest. The refund arose only after the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore the period is reckoned from the date of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The refund was admittedly accrued from order of Commissioner (Appeals) therefore it is within stipulated period prescribed under Section 11B. The grounds for rejection was also that duty was paid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rnace oil has been settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal dated 10-3-2004, therefore the refund was supposed to be filed within one year from the date of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which the appellant has filed on 10-5-2004. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time-limit provided under Section 11B. Hence I hold the refund is not time bar. As regards the jurisdiction issue, since the 100% EOU is under the control of one particular jurisdiction i.e. Asstt. 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 Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, EPZ. Therefore the refund could not have been rejected on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X