9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid excise duty at the rate of 15 per cent by mistake whereas the duty was payable at the rate of 5 per cent. Becoming aware of the excess amount of the duty paid, the petitioners lodged a claim for refund. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise by an order dated 19th July, 1989. There was an appeal by the petitioners. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tt. Collector's office. The relevant date is the date of payment of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not date of assessment. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal to the extent indicated above". 2. The Assistant Collector, however, did not carry out the order of the Collector of Central Excise. The inaction on the part of the Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow credit for such excess duty under the Modvat Scheme on the basis of such investigation". 3. The order passed by Justice Mrs. Pal has also not been carried out. No order has been passed on 3rd August, 1991, although in a show cause notice dated 1st July, 1991 the petitioners were informed that no adjournment could be granted in view of the High Court's direction that the refund claim was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete the investigation on the basis of the petitioner's letter dated 4-9-1989 and to allow credit for such excess duty. This is a categorical directive which should have been carried out. 6. An argument has been taken on the theory of unlawful enrichment. It has been contended that the petitioners have raised their prices and realised whatever has been paid to the department. That is not a g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
