Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 636 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Refund claim - time limitation - the amount of excise duty was not paid with the jurisdictional in charge of the 100% EOU whereas it was paid as excise duty in the Excise Commissionerate - unjust enrichment - Held that: - refund arose only after the demand issue of duty on furnace oil has been settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal dated 10.03.2004, therefore the refund was supposed to be filed within one year from the date of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which the appellant has filed on 10.05.2004. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 11B - refund is not time bar. As regards the jurisdiction issue, since the 100% EOU is under the control of one particular jurisdiction i.e. Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Export Processing Zone, the refund has to be processed by the same jurisdiction as the appellant has no other jurisdiction except the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, EPZ. Therefore the refund could not have been rejected on the point of jurisdiction. As regards the difference in the name of the company, it is the same appellant company whose name was changed as per the authority of certificate issued by the Registrar of Company, Delhi & Haryana. Therefore, it cannot be said that the challan was deposited by different company and refund was claimed by another company. Therefore, the refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground also. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellant is a 100% EOU and exporting 100% of their final product. The duty was paid on the furnace oil which was used in the manufacture of exported goods. Therefore, by virtue of above sub-clause (a) the unjust enrichment is not applicable in the fact of the present case. The appellant is entitled to refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|