9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding duty and only Show Cause Notice had been issued, which was pending adjudication. It was in this background that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has set aside the order of the Asstt. Commissioner who had rejected their refund claim as time barred. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Commissioner, Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that once the assessees paid certain amounts as "duty" by making proper entries in PLA or RG 23A Part II, it should be treated as "duty" and cannot be treated as "deposit" with the Government as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals). They have tried to take support from Rule 173G and pleading that the deposits are only the periodical cash credits made by the assessees in the PLA sufficient to cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the revenue submitted that this judgment is squarely applicable in the present case as the assessee has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 233B of CER, 1944 and hence the refund claim is liable for rejection. 3. Ld. DR, Shri A. Jayachandran reiterates the grounds of appeal and prays that the Order-in-Appeal No. 143/799 (M-III), dated 5-7-99, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, be set aside and the Order-in-Original No. 76/98, dated 30-7-98, passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Chenglaput Division, rejecting the refund claim be restored. 4. None appeared for the respondents in spite of service of the notice on 28-3-2003. Therefore, I proceed to decide the case on merits on the basis of the records and submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 'deposit' and there is no time limit for such deposit to claim the refund. However, the Doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in such deposits of amount pending finalisation of the adjudication proceedings. In this connection, I refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in the case of Parle International Ltd. v. UOI, reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (Guj.), wherein it has been held that the amount deposited by petitioner during adjudication proceedings has to be regarded as 'deposit' and not duty and Doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to such deposit nor is provision under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 applicable. It is also ordered by the Hon'ble High Court that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
