TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oming to the conclusion that the question of unjust enrichment has come to an end after the decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 3499/1991 decided on 13th July, 1991 and it was no longer res integra in so far as the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is concerned. 2. The appellant is the manufacturer of plywood and aqua solution of urea and phenol. The question raised is whether the captive consumption of aqua solution of phenol and urea was excisable to Central Excise duty under the Tariff entry of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (now the Central Excise Act). 3. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No. 3499/1991 filed by the appellant was that urea forma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the statutory amendment, the Assistant Collector reconsidered the matter and passed an order on 12th November, 1991 rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that the appellant had realized the duty on the captive consumption of the items. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector on 12th November, 1991 the appellant preferred a writ petition in this Court which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Against the decision of the learned Single Judge the appellant preferred a writ appeal which was disposed of by the Division Bench by an order dated 2nd May 2000. While disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench noted the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the refund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... look into the matter of unjust enrichment. 10. In our view the submissions of the appellant is not well founded. The very fact that the Parliament intervened in the matter by introducing Section 11B to the Central Excise Act read with proviso. This Section clearly suggests that the application filed by the appellant shall be treated as filed under the proviso to Section 11B of the Act. This Assistant Commissioner ought to have considered the application as a fresh application. This disentitles him to look into the question of whether the duty collected from the appellant as the entire matter came to an end with the passing of the order by the Division Bench of this Court on 13th July, 1991. The very terms of the order specifically m....