9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (T) Shri Mohammed Ismail, Advocate, For the Appellants. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, For the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - M/s. The Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., has filed this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the original authority rejecting three refund claims filed by the appellant. The facts of the case are that as per Notification No. 130/83 dated 27.04.1983, the assessee was entitled to discharge the duty on the sugar cleared by it at concessional rate of Rs.17 per quintal. This concessional rate was available to such of the sugar factories which had received a letter of intent or industrial licence between 1.10.1980 and 30.09.1985. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claims for the three periods namely, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 were filed on 02.02.1988, 02.02.1988 and 13.07.1987 respectively. He also submits that limitation did not apply to their claims as the claims were made to avail the incentive scheme introduced by the Government to promote sugar industry. The authorities were required to harmoniously interpret the legal provisions so that the object of the legislation is achieved. Denying the refund to the appellant as per the scheme frustrated the legislative intention. Therefore, the refund claims could not be rejected. 3 . As per the incentive scheme, circulated by the Ministry of Food Civil Supplies vide letter No. F.3(2)/86-PC. Vol. II dated 4.11.1987, sugar factories eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the other two are barred by limitation. 5 . As regards the unjust enrichment, we find that the Government in express terms allowed the appellant to retain the impugned amount collected from their customers. The benefit was intended to be a legitimate reward to the assessees. This amount was paid to the Government by the assessee as it was not in possession of the certificate entitling it to the benefit at the time of clearance of sugar. In the circumstances, we hold that the refund of the exemption benefit not retained by the assessee will not involve unjust enrichment. Accordingly, we partly allow this appeal by ordering grant of refund in respect of the period 19.02.1987 to 30.05.1987 and sustaining the rejection of the refund clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
