2001 (6) TMI 789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 182/98, dated 4-12-1998 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad. The contention before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the appellants' assessment were provisional and after finalisation, the Superintendent had permitted them to re-credit an amount of Rs. 3,34,155.73. However, a show cause notice was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court judgments in this citation. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, agreeing on this point, proceeded on the basis of Section 11D(1) which laid down as follows :- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court in any other provision of this Act of the rules made thereunder, every person who has collected any amount from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal or any Court, the amount which have been collected can be recovered and suo motu the appellants are required to deposit notwithstanding the fact they will be entitled for refund or not after finalisation of the amount. He submits that the Commissioner has rightly invoked Section 11D(1) of CE Act which gives power to the authorities to direct the persons to deposit the amount of duty collected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y are required to reimburse the amount on account of unjust enrichment. This point has already been dealt with by the Tribunal and the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries and the Tribunal has decided it in Needle Industries (India) Ltd. and Indo Flogates Ltd. (both supra). Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) does not dispute this point that the appellants are entitled for re-crediting ....