9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of order dated April 27, 1989 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Thane III Division, Thane, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to the refund claim of Rs. 3,19,985.39. The facts leading to the passing of this order are not in dispute. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the activity of manufacture of PVC films and sheetings and decorative laminates, etc. Prior to the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by order dated September 26, 1986. The Appellate Collector held that the item was classifiable under residuary Tariff Item No. 68. The Department carried appeal before Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, but the same was rejected by order dated December 5, 1987. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector passed the impugned order rejecting the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Assistant Collector to deny relief on the ground of unjust enrichment while exercising statutory powers under Central Excises and Salt Act. The learned counsel urged that the Central Excise law does not authorise denial of relief on the score of unjust enrichment nor does it make refund of duty conditional on the relief being passed on to the ultimate consumer. The submission of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Collector in the present case could not ignore the judgment and refuse to grant refund. 5. We must also point out that the Assistant Collector was entirely wrong in making reference to the decision in Roplas case and declining the relief. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is not available for the Assistant Collector and even otherwise the Roplas case judgment is no longer good law in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
