Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1324 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of duty paid on refined oil - refund denied on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that: - Sub-section (2) of Section 11B provides that on receipt of any application, the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, it is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise is refundable, then he has to make an order on such refund application. On perusal of the statutory provision, it reveals that nowhere there is no mention that the application has to be returned to the assessee. In this case, initially refund application was filed on 25.02.2005, which is within the limitation period from the date of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 23.11.2004. Thus, refund application is not barred by limitation of time. Unjust enrichment - refund claim - Held that: - Since the duty amount had not been charged or claimed in the invoices, it cannot be said that the incidence has been passed on to the buyer of the goods - in the balance sheet as on 31.03.1992, the appellant had shown the disputed duty under the head “current assets, loans and advance”, showing the narration as Central Excise duty paid under protest. The accounting entry made in the balance sheet proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the incidence of disputed duty had been borne by the assessee and not passed on to any other person. Hence, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|