9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me goods from Hindustan Shipyards Limited (HSL) and paid duty on provisional basis. Subquently Finalization Order was passed on 27.07.1998, wherein it was held that there is excess payment of duty of Rs 97,67,087/-. Refund application was filed pursuant thereto by HSL which was rejected, holding that the burden of duty has not been born by HSL. Accordingly they are not entitled to refund. Subsequently, pursuant to Public Notice issued by the Revenue under Section 11D(2), the present respondent ONGC filed refund claim on 24/9/1998. The same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 07/07/1999 and it was rejected on the ground that the claim of refund does not fall under the provisions of Section 11D(2) of the Act, as the very Heading of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, he urges that pursuant to the Finalization Order dated 27/7/1998, there is no time limit fixed for applying for refund. Further here urges that it is only by way of amendment to Section 11B vide Finance Act 2007, with effect from 11th May 2007, wherein clause (ec) was inserted to Explanation B to Section 11B and the same is reproduced below for reference. "Explanation:- For the purpose of this section,- (B) 'relevant date' means- (ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgement, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of such judgement, decree, order or direction." As the issue involved in this appeal is prior to 11.5.2007, the aforementioned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B. We find that, admittedly, there is no dispute on the fact that the Respondent Assesee has borne the incidence of the amount of Rs 97,67,087/-. 7. We further take notice, as informed by the Counsel for the Respondent, that the pursuant to directions in the Order-in-Appeal for remand on the ground of unjust enrichment, the Adjudicating Authority cannot have adjudicated and cannot reject the refund holding that the Respondent Assessee does not satisfy that they have not passed on the burden of duty against which order, the Respondent Assessee has gone in appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). 8. Accordingly, we find no error in the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
