1990 (11) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esai waives service. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioners re-submitted refund application dated April 13,1988 in accordance with the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated November 18, 1987. The petitioners claimed refund of Rs. 64,22,994.18 in respect of excess duty recovered by the Department for the period commencing from March 1,1984 to August 31, 1984. The petitioners als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty under Tariff Item No. 68. Consequent upon the decision, the petitioners re-submitted the applications for refund which were filed earlier. 4. By order dated May 25,1989, the applications for refund were turned down by reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. & others v. Union of India & others reported in 1988 (38) Excise Law Times 27. The order of the Ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....view in the case of M/s. Anand Metal & Steel Works v. Collector, Central Excise reported in 1989 (41) Excise Law Times 351. The Tribunal directed the Excise authorities not to decline refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. 5. The petitioners complained that in spite of the decisions of the authorities constituted under the Excise Act, the amount of refund is not paid. Shri Setalvad, learned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t enrichment is attracted. In our judgment, the Department is duty bound to refund the amount to the petitioners in accordance with refund applications. 6. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that the Department has not yet decided as to whether an appeal should be preferred against the decision of CEGAT to the Supreme Court and till that decision is tak....