Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1214 - CESTAT, MUMBAIProvisional assessment - refund of security deposit by way of bank guarantee encashed by the department - whether there is requirement of filing a refund claim in the prescribed form? - unjust enrichment - Held that:- The period involved in this case is 1992-97 and the refund was due to the party under Rule 9 (B) (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the provisions on unjust enrichment did not apply to the said rules at the relevant time. Therefore, the department should have suo motu refunded the amount paid in excess on the basis of a simple letter from the assessee. As held in the case of in the Oswal Agro Mills [1994 (2) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the provisions of Section 11B is not attracted when refund arises due to encashment of bank guarantee. Thus the assessee was entitled to refund on the basis of simple letter rather than following the detailed procedure prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly allow the appeal filed by the party with consequential relief, if any.
|