Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2001 (4) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the period 1-11-1981 to 28-2-1986 under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff under which the goods were exempted, while the stand of the department was that the goods were dutiable as parts of motors under Tariff Item 30D of the erstwhile tariff. Duty of Rs. 42,92,497/- was paid by the assessees under protest. The benefit of exemption under Notification No. 73/68-CE was also denied to the goods. Denial of the exemption benefit was challenged by the assessees by filing Writ Petition No. 10072/1981 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court which stayed the operation of the denial, vide its order dt. 20-10-81. On 12-7-82, writ petition was dismissed by the court. In the light of court's direction, appellants filed classification l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the question as to whether the claim was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. Refund of Rs. 13,82,995/- was granted and a sum of Rs. 87,877/- was also sanctioned by way of interest for the delay in sanctioning the refund. As regards the claim for the period 1-11-83 to 28-2-86, the adjudicating authority held that appellants had not discharged the onus cast upon them under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the bar of unjust enrichment, which burden was required to be discharged as the assessments during the above mentioned period could not be considered to be provisional in the absence of a formal order under the provisions of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules for provisional assessment. The lower appellate author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t classification issue is still pending before the High Court and hence there is no question of executing B-13 bond. This letter is reproduced herein below :- 29th May, 1984 The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range I'C Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore-641018. Sir, Sub : Central Excise - Payment of Duty under protest - Execution of B-13 Bond - regarding. Ref : Your O.C. No. 718/84 dt. 19-5-1984. _______ With reference to the above, it is submitted that there is a dispute in the Classification of Stators and Rotors used as Component Parts of Monobloc Pumpset-vide WMP No. 1 1305/82 in W.P. No. 7505/82 dt. 20-9-82 at the High Court of Madras. Final Decision regarding the Classification is still pending in the Cou....