1990 (8) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icle 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated April 27, 1989 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Thane III Division, Thane, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to the refund claim of Rs. 3,19,985.39. The facts leading to the passing of this order are not in dispute. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the activity of manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9, 1981 rejected the claim but the order was set aside in appeal by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by order dated September 26, 1986. The Appellate Collector held that the item was classifiable under residuary Tariff Item No. 68. The Department carried appeal before Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, but the same was rejected by order dated December 5, 1987. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor is entirely misconceived. The learned counsel urged that it was not open for the Assistant Collector to deny relief on the ground of unjust enrichment while exercising statutory powers under Central Excises and Salt Act. The learned counsel urged that the Central Excise law does not authorise denial of relief on the score of unjust enrichment nor does it make refund of duty conditional on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inding on each and every officer exercising powers under Excise Act and the Assistant Collector in the present case could not ignore the judgment and refuse to grant refund. 5. We must also point out that the Assistant Collector was entirely wrong in making reference to the decision in Roplas case and declining the relief. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is not available for the Assistant Col....