TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri Mohammed Yusuf/ Additional Commissioner, AR - For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original crediting the refund sanctioned to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of re-rolled products of Iron/Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They are paying Central Excise duty on their final product as per erstwhile Section 3A of the Central Excise Act 1944 read wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2005 dated 09.12.2005 passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore. He further submitted that the assessments under Section 3A were not final, until 09.12.2005 i.e. the date of said Final Order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Bangalore. He further submitted that the duty amounting to ₹ 36,82,762/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Two only) was paid by the appellant until the Final Order dated 09.12.2005 was passed by the Tribunal based on the provisional fixation of the ACP by the Commissioner of Central excise, Belgaum. He further submitted that the duty paid by the appellant in the instant case should be treated as 'Deposit of duty' and therefore the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Vs. ITC Ltd.-2013 (294) ELT A53 (S.C) b) MRPL Vs. CC, Mangalore - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 484 (Kar) c) Commissioner Vs. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (SC) d) Commissioner Vs. Allied Photographics India (P) Ltd. - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3(SC) 3.2. He also submitted that the principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable for refund of interest paid for delayed payment of interest. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable for refund of interest for the period prior to 11.05.2008, the amendment to the provisions of Section 11B. For this he placed reliance on the decision of Condor Power Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV -2011 (274) E.L.T. 387 (Tri. -Del.). 4. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
