2003 (5) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y for the period prior to six months i.e. 14-11-95 to 18-1-96. He has held that the relevant date for the purpose of refund claim is the date of payment of duty. He has also held that in the present case the appellants have not passed on the incidence of duty to their customers and hence the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The original authority had rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants under Section 11B(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944 on the ground that duty in the present case was paid during the period from 7-6-95 to 18-1-96 and the refund claim was filed on 7-8-96 and hence the same was beyond the six months time limited laid down under Section 11B. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....andaswami learned Consultant, for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the appellants have not passed on the burden of duty to their customers. He has however held that the relevant date for reckoning the period of six months for the purpose of filing the refund claim is the date of payment of duty. In fact in this case, they had to pay the duty on a clear direction from the department and aggrieved by that direction they moved the Commissioner (Appeals). It was after the outcome of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), they came to know that they are not finally required to pay duty and accordingly they filed refund claim. Therefore, the relevant date in their case is the date of knowledge which i....