TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (India) Ltd. The other appellant made similar purchase from the same source during 20.7.88 to 15.1.94. M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. had paid duty on the goods under protest on account of a classification dispute. The classification dispute came to be settled ultimately in their favour by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.3.95. M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. did not claim refund of differential duty on the goods. However, their buyers viz, the appellants herein filed refund claims. M/s. West Coal Fields Ltd. and M/s South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. filed such I claims on 1.1.97 and 20.12.96 respectively. Show-cause notices were issued by the department proposing to reject these claims on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment. The proposal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade an attempt to distinguish the case of Allied Photographics India Ltd. (supra) from that of the instant case. Both sides also addressed question whether the refund claims filed by the appellants could be held to barred by unjust enrichment. 3. Having considered the rival arguments, we think it appropriate to deal with the limitation issue at the outset. Under Section 11B (as amended un the Central Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991), the "relevant date" (from which the period of limitation for the filing be computed), where the refund claim is filed by a person other than the manufacturer, is the date of purchase of goods by such person. Admittedly in the instant cases, the refund claims were filed beyond the period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the buyer to claim refund in cases where he proved that he had not passed on the duty to any other person. The entire scheme of Section 11 B showed the difference between the rights of a manufacturer to claim refund and the right of the buyer to claim refund as separate and distinct. Moreover, under Section 4 of the said Act every payment by the manufacturer, whether under protest or under provisional assessment was on his own account, The accounts of the manufacturer are different from the accounts of a buyer (distributor). Consequently. there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the distributor was entitled to claim refund of "on account" payment made under protest by the manufacturer without complying ....