TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered refund of the amount by way of a formal order dated 20-12-1991 purporting to implement the order of the Collector (Appeals). In this order dated 20-12-1991, the Assistant Collector examined the amended provisions of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act [amended by the Central Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991] and took a view to the effect that the bar of unjust enrichment under such amended provisions would not hit the refund claim in question. The applicants received the amount on 13-1-1992. However, subsequently, the department, by show cause notice, proposed to recover the amount from the party on the ground of unjust enrichment. The proposal was contested by the party. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 991 for implementing the refund order of the Collector (Appeals) was also not challenged by the department. Ld. Counsel has, further, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] in support of the plea that the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B was not applicable to the present case on account of the refund proceedings having terminated prior to the date on which the provisions of unjust enrichment came into force. Ld. Counsel further submits that the lower appellate authority has, in the impugned order, recorded a finding that the provisions of unjust enrichment are applicable to pending refund claims and has allowed the department s appeal on the basis of that findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding on them. The actual refund was made on 13-1-92. Subsequently the show cause notice in question was issued by the department claiming that the refund had been erroneously made as it was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority dropped the SCN proposal. But the lower appellate authority denied the refund to the extent it was held to be hit by unjust enrichment. Hence the present appeal of the assessee. In the Mafatlal Industries case, the Supreme Court held, in para 87 of its judgment, that the amended provisions (unjust enrichment provisions) of Section 11B of the Act could not be applied after termination of refund proceedings. The Apex Court clarified as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
