TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he limitation and unjust enrichment provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, will not apply. He further submits that the deposit made during the investigation of the case is a deposit under protest, for this reason also limitation will not apply. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai-III Vs. Rane Engine Valves Ltd. - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 417 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Chemtrols Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 557 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Maihar Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 991 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Vs. Andor Powertron Ltd. - 2008 (223) ELT 305 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad - 2015 (317) ELT 366 (Tri-Ahmd.) (iii) United Spirit Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva - 2008 (228) ELT 360 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iv) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Mumbai-II - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 379 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the facts is not under dispute that the appellant had deposited a part of the duty amount of ₹ 1,51,410/- during investigation of demand proceedings. It is also admitted 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
