2005 (8) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e submits that the appellant lodged two refund claims amounting to Rs. 490.25 and Rs. 3128.00 on 26-4-2002. The said amount relates to unspent advance deposit lying in the balance in the applicant's account current maintained with the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Kolkata. The appellant received a show cause notice dated 17-10-2002 by informing that why the claim should not be rejected d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gly rejected by the authority concerned and he prays that the appeal may be allowed. He relies on clarification issued by the Board. 3. Ld. JDR supports the impugned order. A clarification was issued by the Board regarding refund of balance in PLA Account. The matter was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and it was advised by the Ministry that the amount in question may therefore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for withdrawing an amount from such account-current only requires a permission from the Commissioner concerned. Neither the law of limitation nor the theory of unjust enrichment is applicable on such deposit. It is the money belonging to the appellant and has a right to withdraw it. There is a distinction between the amount appropriate towards duty and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X