2010 (11) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal, New Delhi dated 2.11.2000 in Appeal No.E/161/2000/MB(SM):- "Whether the issue involved in the instant CEGAT order was not a case of pending proceedings and appropriately falls under the ambit of proviso I of Section 11B meriting considering of unjust enrichment brought about in law.   When at no stage the impugned proceedings have attained finality by way of grant/sanction/final rejection of refund, is not this case covered under ambit of proviso I of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944?"   2. The assessee applied for refund on 10.7.1989 on the ground that it was not liable to pay excise duty on the product in question in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.10.1988 in C.A. Nos.1571 to 1587 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Union of India 1997(5) SCC 536, which has not been properly appreciated. 5. It is clear that the amendment came into force on 20.9.1991. The application for refund was made by the assessee on 19.10.1995, even though in earlier round, application held to be time barred by authorities was held to be in time by this Court. This being the position, on the date of application itself the amendment had already came into force. The said application had to be dealt with as per the amended provision. After the amendment, refund could not be allowed without considering the bar of unjust enrichment. It is a different matter that refunded amounts could not be reclaimed. Reference may be made to the following observations in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.:-10....