TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee and are captively used in the manufacture of mono bloc pumps. The assessee claimed these stators and rotors as parts of mono bloc pump sets which were exempted under Tariff Item 68 as per Notification No.73/68. 3. The further case of the appellant is that the department denied exemption and took a stand that the rotors and stators are parts of motor failing under Tariff Item 30-D and should suffer duty before they were captively used in the manufacture of mono bloc pumps. The Range Officer, I-C Range, Coimbatore, vide letter dt.12.03.1981, informed the assessee that the exemption under notification no.73/68 was not available for them and required them to file price list under Part VI (b) with cost construction certificate. This letter was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.10072 of 1981 and the operation of the letter was stayed by order, dated 20.10.1981. However, this Court, by order, dated 12.07.1982, dismissed the petition as premature and directed to secure proper adjudication from the competent authorities in the matter of classification of stator and rotor. 4. It is also the case of the appellant that the assessee filed a classification list on 26.07.1982 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufactured by the respondent in connection with this end product would necessarily be a part of that end product . Based on the order of the Supreme Court, the assessee filed a claim on 16.07.2004 for refund of duty of Rs. 42,42,497/- received from them, pursuant to the Order-in-Original, dated 13.08.1982. 6. The contention of the claimant was that (i) the assessment was provisional and no final order was passed; (ii) the issue of classification had been finally settled by the Supreme Court and hence the claim for refund and (iii) an amount of Rs. 17.68 lakhs was paid as directed by the High Court and hence there is no unjust enrichment. 7. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-I Division, rejected the claim for refund vide Order No.12/2005-(AC-CBE I Dn.), dated 25.01.2005, on the following grounds : (i) There was no provisional assessment ordered by the competent authority and the claimant's plea now for refund was not projected before the adjudicating authority at the time of finalizing the demand. (ii) The assessee claimed the refund as the excess amount deposited, which is not correct since the said amount was adjusted towards duty, after vacating the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.11.2005, granted refund of duty of Rs. 3,81,911/- and Rs. 3,89,069/- and Rs. 6,12,016/- respectively, aggregating to Rs. 13,82,995/-, pertaining to the period from 01.11.1981 to 31.10.1983. 11. For the period from 01.11.1983 to 28.02.1986, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee vide C.No.IV/16/14/2006-Refund, dated 12.09.2006, to show cause as to why their claim for refund of Rs. 18,41,931/- for the period from 01.11.1983 to 28.02.1986 should not be sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11 B(2) of the Central Excise Act,1944, since it appeared that the excise duties paid have been loaded on indirectly to the cost of the products and that the same was charged and collected from the buyers. 12. The adjudicating authority, vide Order Sl.No.14/2008 (Refund), dated 27.02.2008, rejected the refund claim of Rs. 18,41,931/- and preferred to credit the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the following grounds : (i) There is no provisional assessment without proper order under the then Rule 9 (B) and execution of bond. The assessee has not produced any document requesting for provisional assessment with the proper officer or produce any order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. It is relevant to notice that the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore, by his order, dated 18.07.2005, found that the duty for the period from 01.11.1981 to 31.10.1983 had been paid in lumpsums on instalment basis and that too after the clearance of the goods and, hence, refund of the duty amount was paid for the period between 01.11.1981 and 31.10.1983 would not be hit by the concept of 'unjust enrichment'. The Commissioner (Appeals), hence, ordered for refund of the duty paid. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, on 01.11.2005 and 10.11.2005, refunded the duty amount paid by the assessee for the period 01.11.1981 31.10.1983, aggregating to Rs. 13,82,995/-. The Commissioner of Appals has further directed the claim for refund of duty for the period from 01.11.1983 to 28.02.1986 to be examined on the bar of 'unjust enrichment' only, that too after holding that the claim is not barred by period of limitation. Therefore, the core/principal issue relating to entitlement of refund stands conclusively held against the revenue by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore, dated 18.07.2005. The said order has already attained finality. 17. Now, the adjudicati....