9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondents had availed proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the said Rules in respect of different final products during Mar. '86 to Feb. '87. The Department objected to this simultaneous availment of the two types of credit and accordingly issued a show cause notice proposing to disallow the credit availed under Rule 56A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their appeal before the Tribunal). The original authority allowed refund of only the pre-deposit amount. It rejected the rest of the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. This decision of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee preferred an appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal passed Final Order No. 522/2003 dated 19-6-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are satisfied that it pertains to the claim of refund on input credit then the claim is required to be considered in the light of the judgments noted supra. The authority shall expeditiously dispose of the matter within four months as it is a very old matter, in terms of law". 2. Pursuant to the above remand order, the original authority passed an order holding that the refund claim in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust enrichment will be applicable. This proposition is not in dispute. What is in dispute in this appeal is whether the refund claim could be treated as one relating to input duty credit? The appellant has submitted that Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given an independent finding on this question. 4. After considering the submissions, I find that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed by them under Rule 56A and subsequently reversed consequential to the Tribunal's order dated 6-11-1989. These facts are enough to hold that the refund claim related to input duty credit availed by the assessee under Rule 56A and subsequently reversed. Even according to the appellant, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to such a claim. 5. In the result, the appeal stands di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
