9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : P.K. Das, Member (J)].- The Appellant filed this appeal against the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 10,22,523/- as time barred and hit by bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that in January, 1997, the appellants imported a consignment of capital goods for the purpose of setting up a cement plant. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease of goods. CBEC rejected their application for waiver of payment of interest on 9-10-2001. Subsequently, the appellant found that they had paid excess amount of interest to the tune of Rs.10,22,523/- and applied for refund claim of the said amount. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim as time barred and hit by principle of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test. He further submits that CBEC disposed of by rejecting the application for waiver of pre-deposit on 9-10-2001 and the limitation would run from that date. He further submits that the appellant filed the refund claim on 26-12-2003 and it is hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it is revealed from the letter dated 1-8-2001 addressed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for refund claim would start from the said date. In the case of ONGC v. CCE, Kanpur reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 794 (Tri.-Del.) the Tribunal held that refund claim could be allowed only if filed within six months of vacation or dismissal of manufacturer's claim on unjust enrichment. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate submits that the appellants paid the excess amount of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
