TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twhile Tariff Item 68 whereas the department wanted to classify the product under Tariff Item 14F. The goods were provisionally assessed. From the price declared, the assessable value was arrived at after deducting duty at 105% advalorem. However, the appellant discharged the duty liability only @ 8% advalorem. The dispute relating to classification went upto the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09/07/2008 decided the classification under Tariff Item 68. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed and the provisional assessment done during the period September 1982 to March 1985 was finalized. The adjudicating authority observed that in as much as the appellant has sought deduction towards duty from the listed price @105% advalorem, wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the Central Excise Act,1944. Therefore, it is his contention that the appellant is not liable to discharge any interest liability even it is assumed that the appellant had collected duty from the customers much before the provisions of 11DD came into force. Therefore, he pleads for grant of stay. 4. The Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand contends that the appellant is very much liable to pay interest liability. In this particular case, the provisional assessment was finalized vide order dated 25/06/2012 and the duty liability was determined under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11AB of the said Central Excise Act provides for interest liability whenever duty liability is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustained no loss or injury; allowing him to retain the amount will result in windfall to him. Such a person will be unjustly enriched. This will result in the assessee or claimant obtaining a benefit, which is neither legally nor equitably due to him. It is needless to mention that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. Where a person approaches the High Court but fails, he cannot take advantage of the amount of duty so collected. He is under an obligation to return the said amount to the Revenue. Thus, case in hand is a clear case of undue enrichment and on this count also, the petitioner must fail". 5.2 From the above, it is seen that the appellant did collect the duty li....