9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port Company at Biwandi, Thane and found 730 gunny bags containing 30,000 MT of 'Gutka' of 'Goa-1000' brand were lying therein. On further investigation into the matter, it was observed by the department that the said goods were non-duty paid and in contravention of provisions of Central Excise statute, the same were removed from the factory of the manufacturer, M/s Meenakshi Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Gandhi Nagar. Since the transport documents indicated the name of the present appellant as consignee, Preventive Wing of the Central Excise Department proceeded against the appellant and recorded the statement from the authorized signatories. Since the goods were seized by the department, appellant vide its letter dated 20.07.2009 had approache ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.2 With regard to the applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment, he had held that the excise duty paid by the appellant was collected from the buyers of the goods. Thus, the adjudicating authority has held that incidence of duty had been passed on and accordingly, the refund claim is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved with the adjudication order dated 24.12.2010, the appellant had filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide order dated 27.12.2011, in upholding rejection of refund application in the adjudication order. Thus, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant date for consideration of refund application should be construed as the date of payment of Central Excise duty. He further submits that since the appellant had filed the refund application beyond one year from such relevant date, the same is barred by limitation of time. With regard to the applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment to the facts on the present case, he submits that since the appellant had recovered the sale proceeds from its buyers on the basis of MRP, it is evidenced that excise duty paid by the appellant is a part of such MRP. Thus, incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers of the goods. He further submits that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that the incidence of duty had not been pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction should be construed as the relevant date for computation of the limitation period. In the present case, the show-cause notice dated 30.10.2009 issued by the department, seeking for confirmation of the duty liability was adjudicated vide order dated 24.12.2010 by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise. Since the adjudicating authority had passed such order in the capacity of quasi judicial authority, his order should fall under the purview of Clause (ec) of the Explanation appended to Section 11B of the Act. Admittedly, since the refund application was filed on 25.02.2011; which is within the stipulated time frame, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
