2016 (7) TMI 1324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1985. On 01.09.1984, the appellant had filed the classification list in terms of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 claiming that no duty is payable on refined oil, since the activity of refining of edible oil is not a process of manufacture. Classification of the product was disputed by the Department. The classification dispute was agitated before various judicial forums. The Department insisted for payment of Central Excise duty vide letter dated 04.03.1991. Pursuant to such letter, the assessee had deposited the disputed amount on 08.02.1992 and 10.02.1992. After protracted litigation, the issue was finally resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their judgment dated 23.11.2004 in favour of the assessee. Pursuant to the favo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the facts of the case, for the reason that clearances of the excisable goods were effected between 01.09.1984 to 28.02.1986 and in the corresponding invoices, no Central Excise duty had been charged and collected from the buyers of the goods. Further contention of the assessee is that since the duty attributable to the goods cleared during 1984-1986 was deposited by the appellant in 1992, there was no scope or occasion for passing on the incidence of the duty to the buyers of the goods. The other submission of the assessee is that the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,35,633/- has been shown in the balance sheet as claims receivable from the Department, and thus, the incidence to the extent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed before the concerned authority, such authority cannot part with by returning the same. The relevant paragraph in the said judgment is extracted below. "4. The impugned order returning the application of the petitioners for refund of claim is, therefore, illegal and void and is liable to be set aside only on the ground that it was the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to have considered the claim application and made an order thereon under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act, and the relevant rules. The impugned order dated 10-1-2003 is, therefore, hereby set aside with a direction that on presentation by the petitioners of the original application dated 20-12-2002 which was returned to them under the impugned order, that appl....