2017 (4) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t consumer goods and not covered under notification 1/95. The appellant during the investigation paid duty amount of Rs. 12,95,687/- under protest. Subsequently the show-cause notice was issued demand was confirmed in the adjudication order. In the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal no.48-49/04/MCH dated 10.03.2004, the demand was dropped. Consequent to the dropping of the demand by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed a refund claim on 10.05.2004 for the amount deposited during the investigation. The sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on three grounds. First, the refund was filed after expiry of one year from the relevant date i.e. from the date of payment of duty. Second, the amount of ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that the appellant is a 100% EOU and for the entire operation of the EOU that is the only jurisdiction under the export promotion zone, therefore refund was correctly claimed from the jurisdictional customs officer. As regards the difference in the name of the company, he submits that it is the appellant's company whose name was changed for which the appellant submitted a certificate of incorporation from the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana. Therefore there is no difference between the company depositing the duty and the company claiming the refund. As regards unjust enrichment, he submits that the appellant is a 100% EOU and 100% goods are exported, therefore the provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable in case of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a. Therefore, it cannot be said that the challan was deposited by different company and refund was claimed by another company. Therefore, the refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground also. As regards the unjust enrichment, there is clear provision under clause (a) of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B which reads as under:- "Provided that the amount of duty of excise as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to- (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used ....