2008 (3) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellants. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, For the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - M/s. The Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., has filed this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the original authority rejecting three refund claims filed by the appellant. The facts of the case are that as per Notification No. 130/83....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in 1987. On receiving the certificate, they filed refund claims with the Central Excise authorities claiming the exemption benefit they had not availed. As per the Order-in-Original, the refund claims for 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 (19.02.1987 to 30.05.1987) were filed respectively on 02.02.1988, 02.02.1988 and 13.07.1987. The original authority rejected the refund claims on the ground of refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claims were made to avail the incentive scheme introduced by the Government to promote sugar industry. The authorities were required to harmoniously interpret the legal provisions so that the object of the legislation is achieved. Denying the refund to the appellant as per the scheme frustrated the legislative intention. Therefore, the refund claims could not be rejected. 3. As per the incentiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... copy of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Jain Spinners Ltd. [1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] in support of his claim. 4. We have carefully considered the case records and the claims of both the parties. The issue to be decided is whether the three refund claims were filed in time and if so their sanction would entail unjust enrichment. We find from the order of the original au....