TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....].- The relevant facts of the case, as per record, in brief, are that by letter dated 11-11-2004, the Appellant informed the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise that they have exported the goods by ARE-I No. 43/2003-04 dated 27-3-2004 and corresponding invoice charging excise duty at the rate of 16% instead of 8% under Heading No. 7218.00. They paid total excise duty of Rs. 3,03,188/- instead of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mumbai - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (T-LB) = 2008 (TIOL) 1211 CESTAT MUM-LB held that all types of refund have to be filed under Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder and no suo motu credit of duty paid in excess may be taken by the assessee. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "12. We find that there is no provision under Central Excise Act and Rules allowing suo mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 11B and have to pass the proof of not passing on the incidence of duty to others. The recent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog and Others clearly laid down that all refunds have to pass through doctrine of unjust enrichment, even if it is not so expressly provided for in the statute. From these decisions, it clearly emerges that all types of refund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided by the Larger Bench and, therefore, the appeal should be rejected. I find that there is a factual dispute of availment of credit. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal also observed that no suo motu credit can be taken unless and until the Department is satisfied regarding the doctrine of unjust enrichment. In any event, the Appellant applied for availment of Credit by letter dated 11-11-2004. Wh....