9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The petitioners re-submitted refund application dated April 13,1988 in accordance with the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated November 18, 1987. The petitioners claimed refund of Rs. 64,22,994.18 in respect of excess duty recovered by the Department for the period commencing from March 1,1984 to August 31, 1984. The petitioners also claimed refund of duty of Rs. 62,05, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the decision, the petitioners re-submitted the applications for refund which were filed earlier. 4. By order dated May 25,1989, the applications for refund were turned down by reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. & others v. Union of India & others reported in 1988 (38) Excise Law Times 27. The order of the Assistant Collector proceeded on the basis th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Works v. Collector, Central Excise reported in 1989 (41) Excise Law Times 351. The Tribunal directed the Excise authorities not to decline refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. 5. The petitioners complained that in spite of the decisions of the authorities constituted under the Excise Act, the amount of refund is not paid. Shri Setalvad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department is duty bound to refund the amount to the petitioners in accordance with refund applications. 6. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that the Department has not yet decided as to whether an appeal should be preferred against the decision of CEGAT to the Supreme Court and till that decision is taken, the Department is not liable to make refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
