TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of limitation as well as on account of unjust enrichment as contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of stranded wires of steel which are intermediate products and the same are used as inputs to manufacture the appellant's final product i.e. Auto Control Cables for motor vehicles. The final products are manufactured by the appellant's other factories where the intermediate products namely stranded wires were cleared on payment of duty and by availing CENVAT credit of duty paid in their other factories where the final product is to be manufactured. The appellant are discharging duty liability as per cost construction of such st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained finality. In pursuance of the said adjudication, the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.9,48,509/-. While entertaining the refund claim, a show-cause notice was issued and the same was adjudicated by denial of refund claim which was confirmed by the lower appellate authority as time barred as well as the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant are before us. 3. During the course of arguments the learned Advocate for the appellant pleaded that provision to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to their case as this provision deals with the claim of refund of duty. He further pleaded that in this case, the appellant has made a deposit und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LT 328 (S.C.) is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case the claimant has already charged and collected the duty from the customers and the same was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund which is not in this case. In alternative, he submitted that the amount in dispute although collected from their sister concern / group companies by way of supplementary invoices but the sister concern/group companies have not taken the credit of the duty paid against the supplementary invoices raised by the appellant in consequence of the show-cause notice demanding differential duty. In support of this contention he placed on record the certificates issued by the concerned Jurisdictional Officer of Central Excise of their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2009 (240) ELT 513 (Bom.) the Hon'ble High Court has held that wherein pursuant to provisional assessment the provisions of unjust enrichment is applicable to refund consequent upon to final assessment. Therefore, the impugned order is sustainable. The appeal filed by the appellant is required to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. We have gone through the contentions made by both the sides before us. After considering the submissions, we find that in this case the appellant have deposited the amount under protest on differential value of the goods cleared by them to their sister unit/group companies. While adjudication, the show-cause notice demanding the differential dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not appropriated as duty by the adjudicating authority. In the case of United Spirits Ltd. (supra) the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was that where an amount deposited in pursuant to provisional assessment, doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to refund consequent upon final assessment. In that case also the amount provisionally deposited was appropriated against as duty on finalisation of the assessment which was subsequently set aside which is not in this case. In fact in this case, the amount deposited by the appellant was never appropriated as duty. Therefore, the facts of United Spirits Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of this case. From the facts of the case of Pride Foramer (supra) (which the learn....