2017 (3) TMI 1634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vestigation for demanding of duty on furnace oil on the ground that the furnace oil is not 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 Nos. 48-49/04/MCH, dated 10-3-2004, the demand was dropped. Consequent to the dropping of the demand by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed a refund claim on 10-5-2004 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 y....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Fruit & Vegetable Ltd. and the claim was made by M/s. Mother Dairy Foods Processing Ltd. He submits 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%....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t it is the same appellant company whose name was changed as per the authority of certificate issued by the Registrar of Company, Delhi & Haryana. 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 ....