1999 (5) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dev Nath, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. - Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : The respondents herein paid duty at a certain rate on the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them. At the time of assessment of RT 12 return, the appellants were given a credit by concerned Superintendent holding that they have paid a higher amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the mean time a Notification under Section 11C has been issued by the Central Government stating that a general practice was prevailing of charging the duty at the lower rate in respect of the said goods and therefore, no duty liability arose on any person who had not paid the higher amount of duty although leviable at a higher rate. The lower appellate authority relying on this Notification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted by the Superintendent by assessment of RT 12 returns dated 20-6-1986. He therefore, submits that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11C does not apply at all. The question of unjust enrichment does not apply because this is not a question of pending refund claim under Section 11B. There is no provision of any unjust enrichment whatsoever, and cannot be, in Section 11A. He therefore, s....