TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the plea of limitation raised before it by way of miscellaneous petition? (b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on a letter dated 23-7-96, which is an unauthenticated document? (c ) Whether the Tribunal is correct in ordering for the refund even in cases where there is cover-up and wrong representation of facts and when a party to the dispute is approaching the Authorities without clean hands and without properly considering the application of doctrine of unjust enrichment? 2.1The brief facts of the case are as under: The first respondent (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f duty was restricted to the normal period of limitation. Thus, the assessees were held not liable to pay the duty beyond the normal period of six months preceding the date of issue of the show cause notice. 2.3The assessees thus were eligible to apply for refund of duty. They, accordingly, filed an application on 25-2-98 before the Assistant Commissioner for refund. On receipt of such application, the respondent was served with a show cause notice on 21-5-98 to show cause why the cash refund should not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. Ultimately, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 8-12-99, ordered a refund of an amount of Rs. 1,05,62,041/- to the first respondent. Hence, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals), who by an order dated 24-2-2003 held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the facts of the case and allowed the appeal. 2.5Against the said order dated 24-2-2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, who by an order dated 7-7-2004, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue raising the above substantial questions of law. 3.1With regard to the first question of law, viz., whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the plea of limitation raised before it, by way of miscellaneous petition, as rightly held by the CESTAT, the question of limitation has already been rejected by the order of the Assistant Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.1In regard to the third question of law, viz., whether the Tribunal is correct in ordering for the refund even in cases where there is cover-up and wrong representation of facts and when a party to the dispute is approaching the Authorities without clean hands and without properly considering the application of doctrine of unjust enrichment, we are obliged to refer the reply sent by IOC and MRL, now CPCL, which read as follows :- (1) Letter of the IOC Ltd. Dated: 7-12-2000 M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd., A Division of South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., 36-40, Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Sub:- Supply of Furfural Dehyde Dear Sir, Refer your letter dated 11-11-2000, we regret to inform t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hfully, for CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Sd/- N. RAMAKRISHNAN MANAGER (FINANCE-M&W) 5.2Both the said letters have been referred in Paragraph 1 of the order of the CESTAT. In fact, the Tribunal has referred to the letter of the MRL, now CPCL, dated February 5, 2001, that they did not pay any amount of excise duty by way of supplementary invoices. Similarly, with regard to the reply of the IOC, the Tribunal has also observed that the Assistant Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the IOC did not respond to the queries. The finding of the Assistant Commissioner in this regard with reference to the letter dated 7-12-2001 of the IOC, in our considered opinion, is erroneous. What all the IOC has stated in the letter d....