2005 (7) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacturer was vacated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in Order-in-Original No. 95/96, dated 24-6-96 which became final. On 21-12-99, the respondents filed refund claim in respect of the duty paid on the "sugantha supari" purchased under the above invoices. This claim was based on the Madras High Court's judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 4265-4267/94 filed by a group of supari manufacturers not including M/s. Rukmani Packwell Traders. That judgment had held that betel-nut powder, known as "supari", not containing tobacco was not to be treated as "pan masala" and hence not exigible to duty of excise. The original authority rejected the refund claim on merits as well as on the grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment. It held th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in National Winder v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-LB), wherein it was held that any refund claim filed by the buyer/purchaser after six months of the purchase of the goods would be hit by limitation, even if duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer. The learned Consultant for the respondent submits that, as the judgment of the High Court was passed in rem, they would be eligible for its benefit and therefore their refund claim was not liable to be rejected on merits or on the ground of limitation. The period of limitation should be reckoned from the date on which the judgment of the High Court was produced before the original authority as held by the lower appe....