2001 (9) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... writ petition pertained to applications made for refund of a sum of Rs. 81,81,03l.48. The said refund applications seem to have been made on two dates, they being 8-l2-1988 and 14-5-1990. There is a short factual background to this controversy. It is an admitted position that the claim of the petitioners was accepted right up to the Supreme Court. In fact, the claim was accepted by the Collector of Central Excise in Appeal No. 469 of 1982, dated 2l-l2-1983. On that basis, the petitioners also had stopped payment of duties, but were directed to pay duties on the ground that the order of the Collector dated 21-2-1983 was challenged before the Tribunal. It is an admitted position that the petitioners started paying the duty "under protest". T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e being processed keeping in view the criterion of unjust enrichment. Very curiously enough in this counter, there is nothing said about as to what has exactly been done with those so called pending applications which were allegedly being processed. 3.Learned single Judge made reference to these facts and noted that the petitioners had, in fact, become entitled to the refund because of the order dated 29-6-1990. However, learned Judge made the following observations in paragraph 8 : "………........ Therefore, from the above it is made very clear that the only grievance of the petitioners herein is the denial of refund and it is stated even by the respondents that against the denial of refund the petitioner may approach the proper A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within a further period of three months." 6.Learned Senior Counsel then points out that existence of any "decision" or "order" passed under the Act by the Central Excise Officer lower in rank than a Collector is a sine qua non for any appeal being filed. Learned Counsel further points out that such order must also be communicated to the party, so that the party could file an appeal within three months from the date of such communication. He further points out that there is no such order passed on the refund applications made by the petitioners/appellants. This position when it was specifically put to the learned Standing Counsel of the Central Government, he has fairly admitted that the applications for refund have yet not been ordered u....