TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,30,425/- and sanctioned a refund of Rs. 2,98,119/-. One of the basic reasons for granting refund of claim was that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not attracted as the petitioner was manufacturing poles for their captive consumption and no pole was being sold to the customer. – tribunal allowed the refund claim partially and rejected the refund lciam of Rs. 1,82,934 – held that - claim should have been filed before the expiry of six months from the relevant date which is defined in Explanation to Section 11 B(f) of the Act. Accordingly, the relevant date has to be computed from the date of payment of duty which fell admittedly beyond the period of six months. In fact it is the duty of the Tribunal to act in accordance with the statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. As per the provisions of Rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they filed price list No. 1/92-93 effective from 1992-93 w.e.f. 1.4.1992 before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise in respect of PCC Poles which was duly approved @ Rs.667.49 per pole. Similarly price lists were also filed lateron and approval was duly accorded. During the period commencing from 24.2.1993 to 30.11.1993 the petitioner cleared that PCC Poles @ Rs.667,.49 P. per pole plus excise duty @ 20% ad valorem. Thereafter they filed refund claim of duty amounting to Rs. 6,19,451/- claiming that excess duty has been paid. A show cause notice dated 9.2.1995 (P.1) was issued to them calling upon them to explain to the Assistant Collector, Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the claim with the observation that under Section 11 B of the Act application for claiming refund of any duty is to be made before the expiry of six months from the relevant date which is defined in Explanation to Section 11 B(f) of the Act. The relevant date is to be computed from the payment due. The date of payment of due falls beyond the period of six months prior to the date of filing of refund claim. We have heard the learned counsel and are of the view that no question of law warranting issuance of directions for reference to this Court would arise. Firstly, the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 9.6.2000 dismissing the main appeal as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
