TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition? (b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on a letter dated 23-7-96, which is an unauthenticated document? (c ) Whether the Tribunal is correct in ordering for the refund even in cases where there is cover-up and wrong representation of facts and when a party to the dispute is approaching the Authorities without clean hands and without properly considering the application of doctrine of unjust enrichment? 2.1The brief facts of the case are as under: The first respondent (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the assessee') is a manufacturer of 'Furfuraldehyde' (hereinafter referred to as 'Furfural'), which was an input for bulk drugs. Furfural was exempted from duty of excise under notifications issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice. 2.3The assessees thus were eligible to apply for refund of duty. They, accordingly, filed an application on 25-2-98 before the Assistant Commissioner for refund. On receipt of such application, the respondent was served with a show cause notice on 21-5-98 to show cause why the cash refund should not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. Ultimately, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 8-12-99, ordered a refund of an amount of Rs. 1,05,62,041/- to the first respondent. Hence, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by an order dated 20th October, 2000, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the case to him with directions. After the remand, the Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 24-2-2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, who by an order dated 7-7-2004, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue raising the above substantial questions of law. 3.1With regard to the first question of law, viz., whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the plea of limitation raised before it, by way of miscellaneous petition, as rightly held by the CESTAT, the question of limitation has already been rejected by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19-12-2001 itself holding that " there cannot be a dispute on the part of time factor in preferring the claim by the assessee in the instant case". The said finding had become final as the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the dispute is approaching the Authorities without clean hands and without properly considering the application of doctrine of unjust enrichment, we are obliged to refer the reply sent by IOC and MRL, now CPCL, which read as follows :- (1) Letter of the IOC Ltd. Dated: 7-12-2000 M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd., A Division of South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., 36-40, Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Sub:- Supply of Furfural Dehyde Dear Sir, Refer your letter dated 11-11-2000, we regret to inform that till date we are yet to receive copies of the invoices as stated by you. However, please find herewith a statement showing the list of invoices received by us from you against supply of Furfural Dehyde ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of the MRL, now CPCL, dated February 5, 2001, that they did not pay any amount of excise duty by way of supplementary invoices. Similarly, with regard to the reply of the IOC, the Tribunal has also observed that the Assistant Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the IOC did not respond to the queries. The finding of the Assistant Commissioner in this regard with reference to the letter dated 7-12-2001 of the IOC, in our considered opinion, is erroneous. What all the IOC has stated in the letter dated 7-12-2001 is that as per their records, the supply were exempted totally from the payment of excise duty and hence, they have settled the bill of the assessee fully as per the bill value, which would apparently mean that they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
