9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant M/s. Poona Rolling Mills, Pune, was engaged in manufacturing MS round bars falling under Chapter Head No.72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant claimed exemption from the payment of Central Excise duty in terms of the notification dated 1 August 2003. The Appellant clearing products manufactured by them without payment of Central Excise duty, the Respondent - Department opined that the Petitioner had wrongfully availed the benefit of the notification, and the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 18 December 1987 demanding the Central Excise duty from the Appellant for clearance made during the period from 9 July 1985 to 10 March 1987. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund of Rs.5,90,000/-. The Appellant filed this refund claim pursuant to an order dated 6 July 2004 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant annexed copies of the challans for deposit of Rs.90,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- as above. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, scrutinized the documents submitted by the Appellant and observed that the Appellant had not produced any documents to establish that amount of duty of excise in relation to which refund was claimed was not passed by the assessee to any other person as envisaged under Section 11B of the Act of 1944. Accordingly, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the Appellant for rejection of the refund claimed for non-production and requisite e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant is not entitled for a refund. The Appellant challenged this order before the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Appeal by the impugned order dated 12 December 2008. Thereafter, the Appellant is before us by this Appeal. 8. The Appeal was admitted on 25 November 2009 on the following questions of law:- "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in applying the bar of unjust enrichment for return of deposit made by the appellants under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ? (b) Whether the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is passed in violation of principles of natural justice ?" 9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the amounts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the same view in the case of Killick Caribonium. In the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd., the Division Bench considered the Appeal filed by the Department. Here the assessee had argued that the amount was deposited by the stay application, and therefore, Section 11B was not attracted. The Department argued that the assessee had termed the amount in his Books of Accounts and from which presumption would arise that the burden has passed on to the consumer. The Division Bench observed that repeatedly the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that Section 11B, which relates to the claim of refund of duty, will not apply where the amount in question is deposited in compliance with the interim order, and no presumption would arise from how the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
