TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal clarifies unjust enrichment exclusion in refund claims; directs consideration of pending refund claim.</h1> <h3>RAYMOND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS, NAGPUR</h3> RAYMOND LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS, NAGPUR - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 283 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Rectification of an apparent mistake in the final order passed by the Bench.2. Specific directions to the original authority regarding the refund claim of the appellant.Issue 1: Rectification of Apparent Mistake in Final Order:The appellant filed two applications before the tribunal, one for rectification of an apparent mistake in the final order and the other for specific directions to the original authority regarding a refund claim. The final order passed in pursuance of a remand order allowed the appeal by setting aside the duty demand. The appellant pointed out a mistake in the final order related to the mention of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, arguing that unjust enrichment provisions should not apply to a refund claim of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention and clarified that while Section 11B remains applicable, the refund claim should be considered without the bar of unjust enrichment. A clarificatory sentence was added to the final order to this effect, allowing the rectification application.Issue 2: Specific Directions to Original Authority for Refund Claim:The second application was prompted by a letter from the Assistant Commissioner requiring the appellant to file a fresh refund claim in the proper form. The appellant sought appropriate directions to the original authority, arguing that the original refund claim should be disposed of in line with the tribunal's remand order. The tribunal noted that the final order did not mention any form of refund claim by the revenue, thus directing the original authority to consider the pending refund claim dated 18-5-2004 in accordance with the remand order. As the requirement was clear from the text of the final order, the application was rejected.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the rectification application regarding the mention of Section 11B in the final order, clarifying that unjust enrichment provisions should not apply to the refund claim. Additionally, the tribunal directed the original authority to consider the pending refund claim in line with the remand order, rejecting the application seeking specific directions in this regard.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
