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 granted, refund rejection overturned in favor of appellant. Timely claim upheld, company name change justified.</h1> <h3>M/s. Mother Diary Foods Processing Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection and ruling in favor of the appellant. The refund claim was deemed timely and ... 100% EOU - Refund claim - time limitation - the amount of excise duty was not paid with the jurisdictional in charge of the 100% EOU whereas it was paid as excise duty in the Excise Commissionerate - unjust enrichment - Held that: - refund arose only after the demand issue of duty on furnace oil has been settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal dated 10.03.2004, therefore the refund was supposed to be filed within one year from the date of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which the appellant has filed on 10.05.2004. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 11B - refund is not time bar. As regards the jurisdiction issue, since the 100% EOU is under the control of one particular jurisdiction i.e. Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Export Processing Zone, the refund has to be processed by the same jurisdiction as the appellant has no other jurisdiction except the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, EPZ. Therefore the refund could not have been rejected on the point of jurisdiction. As regards the difference in the name of the company, it is the same appellant company whose name was changed as per the authority of certificate issued by the Registrar of Company, Delhi & Haryana. Therefore, it cannot be said that the challan was deposited by different company and refund was claimed by another company. Therefore, the refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground also. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellant is a 100% EOU and exporting 100% of their final product. The duty was paid on the furnace oil which was used in the manufacture of exported goods. Therefore, by virtue of above sub-clause (a) the unjust enrichment is not applicable in the fact of the present case. The appellant is entitled to refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Refund claim rejection based on time limit and jurisdiction.2. Discrepancy in company name for duty payment and refund claim.3. Application of unjust enrichment in the case of a 100% EOU.Analysis:1. Refund Claim Time Bar and Jurisdiction:The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting mango pulp, procured furnace oil under a specific notification without duty payment. The department demanded duty, leading to the appellant paying under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, prompting a refund claim. The sanctioning authority rejected the claim citing time limit, jurisdiction, and unjust enrichment. The appellant argued the claim was within the stipulated period from the Commissioner (Appeals) order and that jurisdiction was correct due to EOU operations. The Tribunal agreed, stating the refund was timely and jurisdictionally appropriate, as the EOU fell under a specific customs jurisdiction.2. Company Name Discrepancy:Another ground for rejecting the refund was a discrepancy in the company name for duty payment and refund claim. The appellant clarified that the company name change was legitimate, supported by a Registrar of Companies certificate. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, ruling that the name change did not invalidate the refund claim, as it was the same entity involved in both the duty payment and the refund request.3. Unjust Enrichment for 100% EOU:The issue of unjust enrichment was raised based on a Supreme Court judgment. The appellant contended that being a 100% EOU exporting all goods, the unjust enrichment principle did not apply as per Section 11B(2) proviso clause (a). The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the duty paid on the furnace oil was for goods exported, exempting the case from unjust enrichment considerations. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments cited by the revenue, noting their inapplicability to the unique circumstances of a 100% EOU scenario.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection and ruling in favor of the appellant based on the valid arguments presented regarding the time limit, jurisdiction, company name change, and the inapplicability of unjust enrichment in the context of a 100% EOU exporting all goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
