TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Order-in-Original No. 95/96, dated 24-6-96 which became final. On 21-12-99, the respondents filed refund claim in respect of the duty paid on the sugantha supari purchased under the above invoices. This claim was based on the Madras High Court s judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 4265-4267/94 filed by a group of supari manufacturers not including M/s. Rukmani Packwell Traders. That judgment had held that betel-nut powder, known as supari , not containing tobacco was not to be treated as pan masala and hence not exigible to duty of excise. The original authority rejected the refund claim on merits as well as on the grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment. It held that the assessee was not eligible for the benefit of the High Court s jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-LB), wherein it was held that any refund claim filed by the buyer/purchaser after six months of the purchase of the goods would be hit by limitation, even if duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer. The learned Consultant for the respondent submits that, as the judgment of the High Court was passed in rem, they would be eligible for its benefit and therefore their refund claim was not liable to be rejected on merits or on the ground of limitation. The period of limitation should be reckoned from the date on which the judgment of the High Court was produced before the original authority as held by the lower appellate authority. With regard to unjust enrichment, it is submitted that the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lid reason why the respondents should not claim such benefit within the time stipulated under Section 11B. The High Court s judgment did not have the effect of doing away with the applicability of Section 11B to the subject refund claim. Section 11B has ever had its say in this case. Accordingly, it has to be held that the refund claim filed on 21-12-99 in respect of the duty paid during 1994-95 is time-barred. The preliminary issue stands decided against the respondents. Hence it is not necessary to go into the remaining issues. 4. In the result, the order of the lower appellate authority sanctioning cash refund of duty to the respondents gets set aside and this appeal gets allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
