2005 (6) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are manufacturers of non-alloy steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA Schedule. During the material period, they were working under compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, they had to discharge the duty liability in respect of their products on the basis of the Annual Capacity of Pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Commissioner, who rejected it on account of time-bar and unjust enrichment. The appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of the original authority did not succeeded in full. The lower appellate authority allowed the claim but credited the amount to the consumer welfare fund. Hence the present appeal. The only issue arising for consideration is whether the above refund claim can be hel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ke the appellants, there was no provision for recovery in the event of default. Hence it cannot be said that the compounded levy scheme (which is no more in force) was self-contained in all respects. It lacked recovery mechanism. In the circumstances, the general provisions of Section 11A of the Act would be invocable for recovery of any amount of duty non-paid or short-paid, by the manufacturers ....