1992 (10) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands appeals for Collector to decide on merits, sets aside order for specific respondents.

COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus LAKSHMl NARAYAN MOTOR ENGG. WORKS

COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus LAKSHMl NARAYAN MOTOR ENGG. WORKS - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims | Interpretation of amended provisions of Section 11B of Central Excises & Salt Act | Disposal of appeals by Collector (Appeals) directing to file refund claims before Assistant Collectors | Stay Petitions rendered infructuous | Cross-objections filed by respondents | Applicability of unjust enrichment principle | Need for remand to Collector (Appeals) for deciding appeals on merits | Lack of response from one respondentAnalysis:The judgment involves three appeals arising from a batch of appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, challenging a combined Order-in-Appeal dated 26-11-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The Assistant Collectors had rejected refund claims, leading the aggrieved parties (now respondents) to file appeals before the Collector (Appeals), who directed them to file refund claims as per the amended provisions of Section 11B. The Appellant Collector filed separate appeals for each case disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) due to common issues. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were disposed of at first glance, rendering three Stay Petitions infructuous, which were subsequently dismissed.Out of the three appeals, respondents M/s. Jyoti Oil Company, M/s. Kalinga Cement Ltd., and M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Motor Engineering Works were involved. While M/s. Jyoti Oil Company and M/s. Kalinga Cement Ltd. responded to the proceedings, M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Motor Engineering Works did not. The Collector (Appeals) had set aside the Assistant Collectors' orders, directing them to re-examine the refund claims in light of the amended Section 11B. The judgment discussed the implications of the amended provisions of Section 11B and the requirement to establish that the duty sought to be refunded was not passed on to buyers.The legal representatives for the parties presented arguments regarding the application of the amended Section 11B, the need for remand to the Collector (Appeals) for a decision on merits, and the potential impact on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal agreed with the analysis presented by the Senior Departmental Representative, emphasizing that the amended provisions of Section 11B would only be relevant if the claims were found acceptable. The judgment highlighted the importance of examining the claims on their merits and the necessity of following the prescribed procedure under the amended provisions only if the claims were admissible.The judgment addressed the cross-objections filed by respondents and the need for remand to the Collector (Appeals) for a decision on merits. It differentiated between the requirements of the amended Section 11B and the need to consider unjust enrichment, emphasizing that the application of the amended provisions would depend on the admissibility of the claims. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing the Collector (Appeals) to decide on the appeals based on their merits and in accordance with the law. The order was passed concerning the three appeals and related cross-objections, setting aside the impugned order with reference to the concerned respondents only, with further examination pending for other parties in subsequent appeals.