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>Appeal partially allowed for refund on excess excise duty paid by State PSU for PCC pipes</h1> <h3>Tamilnadu Asbestos Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli</h3> Tamilnadu Asbestos Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli - TMI Issues:Refund claim based on excess excise duty paid, limitation period for filing refund claim, unjust enrichment, eligibility for refund as per rate contract issued by TWAD Board.Analysis:The appellant, a State Public Sector Undertaking, filed a refund claim of &8377; 15,89,304/- for excess excise duty paid on PCC pipes supplied to TWAD Board. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) citing limitation and unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that the claim period was within time limits and unjust enrichment did not apply as TWAD Board did not pay any excess duty. The Tribunal noted that the claim for the period March 98 to April 98 and part of May 98 was time-barred, but the claim for May 98 to August 98 was within the limitation period as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.On the merits, it was observed that the appellant cleared goods based on the previous year's rate contract pending receipt of the revised rate contract for the year 1998-99 from TWAD Board. The Tribunal found that the appellant could not opt for provisional assessment as the rates were fixed by TWAD Board annually, and there was no variation in prices. Referring to a similar Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for a refund for the period 28.5.98 to 31.8.98, as they had paid excise duty at a higher price based on the previous year's rate.The Tribunal ruled that the unjust enrichment clause did not apply in this case as TWAD Board did not pay any excess excise duty to the appellant, and the appellant had collected only the contract price. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, holding the refund claim time-barred for a specific period but allowing the refund for the period 28.5.98 to 31.8.98 based on the Apex Court's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
