Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 273 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of deposit made during investigation - denial on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - case of appellant is that the amount of refund is of deposit made during the investigation, therefore it is not a duty, and refund of such amount is not governed by Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Held that: - the amount paid was under the head of Central Excise duty, therefore this is a case of refund of excise duty and not anything else, if this be so the refund of duty, in the present case, is clearly governed by Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - As per the provisions of Section 11B, sub-section (5) (B) (ec), the relevant date which is taken for 1 year limitation is the date of passing of the order by which the demand was dropped. In the present case the order was passed on 12.7.2010, refund claim was filed on 1.2.2012 that is much after the 1 year of relevant date, accordingly the refund is clearly time barred. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that every refund should be passed through the test of unjust enrichment, therefore even the amount deposited during the investigation, refund of the same has to pass through test of unjust enrichment. The appellant have failed to establish that incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|