9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a refund. The appellants had paid duty at the rate of 10% during the period 1-4-1995 to 20-6-1995 when the rate of duty applicable under Central Excise Notification 1/93 was 5%. This resulted in excess payment of duty during the period due to erroneous calculation. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing and examining the matter came to the following conclusion and rejected refund : "This ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of claim is not on the grounds of unjust enrichment as contended by them. The appellants contention that they have issued the credit notes to these four buyers in respect of excess duty amount does not advance their case. The Hon'ble South Zonal Bench Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Madras v Addison Co., reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 429 (T) held that refund claim arises with reference to payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of the goods but after coming to a finding that rejection of claim was not on the grounds of unjust enrichment as contended by the appellants he applied the position in the case of Addison and Company [1997 (93) E.L.T. 429] case, to reject the claim on the same ground. The Assistant Commissioner has not rejected the claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, the Commissioner (Appeals) therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of duty on approved Classification Lists. Following these decisions we find no merits in rejection of the claim on the ground, that "Duty was paid as per rate declared by him under Rule 173B". (c) As regards denial of refund, on the grounds the buyers would have availed Modvat credit, we find that the Section 11B does not permit such a denial of refund on this ground. Rule 57E as it then exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
