TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any person claiming refund of any duty of Excise may make an application for refund of such duty before the expiry of one year from the ‘relevant date’. Relevant date has been defined in Explanation (B) of Sub-Section 5 of Section 11(B) of the Act. Clause (f) provides that the date of payment in any other case would be the date of payment of duty. The limitation for filing the refund application would start from the date of payment of duty, which date was 5 February, 2009 or any subsequent date. The refund application was filed by the appellant on 22 January, 2010 - It was, therefore, within time - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Unjust enrichment - Held that:- In the present case, the Appellant had sold the goods to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8% by a notification dated 24 February, 2009. This resulted in excess duty payment of ₹ 25,26,228.88/-. It is for this amount that the appellant had filed the refund application. 3. The appellant claimed that it issued a credit note dated 31 December, 2009 of ₹ 25,26,228.88/- in favour M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter filed the refund claim on 22 January, 2010. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by Order dated 21 March, 2011 for the reason that it had been filed beyond the period prescribed of one year as contemplated for under Section 11 (B)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for the reason that M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. who had ultimately sold the produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary, 2010 within the stipulated period of one year as provided for in Section 11(B)(1) of the Act. . Learned counsel also submitted that there was no unjust enrichment and in support of this contention reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Tribunal delivered by one of us namely Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar in M/s Ginni Filaments Ltd. V/s Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow reported as 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 423 (Tri.-All.). This judgment relied upon by four judgments rendered by the High Courts. 5. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, however, contented that the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any infirmity and in support of his contention he has placed before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of payment of duty, which date as noticed above, was 5 February, 2009 or any subsequent date. The refund application was filed by the appellant on 22 January, 2010. It was, therefore, within time. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot therefore, be sustained. 9. We also find force in the second submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in regard to unjust enrichment. In the present case, the Appellant had sold the goods to M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. It had charged excess duty and it is not in dispute that the Appellant had issued a credit note for this excess amount in favor M/s P.N. Saftech Pvt. Ltd. Such being the position, there is no unjust e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
