TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (6) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....99 (33) RLT 978. In the first decision the Bench took the view that rebate allowable to manufacturers of sugar as per Notification No.108/78 comes under the provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act are hit by the principle of unjust enrichment. In the second decision in National Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. the South Regional Bench took the view that incentive provided to manufacturers of sugar under Notification No. 237/87 (successor notification to Notification 108/78) is in the nature of subsidy falling outside the purview of unjust enrichment and hence not falling under Section 11B of the Act. 2. The facts of the two cases before us are virtually identical. Appe-llants in both the cases are manufacturers of sugar. Contentions r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be credited to the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) of the manufacturer. No cash payment is to be made. The differential amount will be entered as proforma credit which can be utilised by the party for payment of excise duty only. According to the Board this proforma credit extended to the manufacturers of sugar is analogous to that contained in Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. According to the Board "All that is necessary in such cases is to determine the entitlement and by deciding the quantities and the amounts to the extent of concession conferred, the balance, if any, may be credited to the Personal Ledger Account". From this understanding of the notification by the Board, it is clear that no refund as contemplated by Section 11B of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder ignorance of law or otherwise, if by subsequent legislation or valid notifications the obligation to pay the duty is withdrawn, it cannot be refused since he has already paid the duty. If duty paid is shown to be not leviable or entitled for rebate, the revenue has to refund, adjust, credit such amount to the assessee, as the case may be". 4. As stated earlier, in the case of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. the period was from 1-5-1982 to 30-9-1982. They claimed benefit of the notification by filing petition before the Superintendent of Central Excise on 11-10-1982. The total claim made by them as the amount of incentive entitled under the notification was Rs. 13,53,065.56. This claim filed before the Superintendent of Central Excise reached....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een passed on to customers the said amount cannot be refunded and has to be deposited in favour of Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B read with Section 12C of the Act. Manufacturer challenged this order in appeal. The said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as is evidenced by Order-in-Appeal No. 127-CE/KNP/96, dated 31-5-1996. Hence this appeal. 5. As stated earlier in this order, Central Government issued Notification 132/82 and related notifications to confer certain benefits on manufacturers of sugar. The benefits were not in the form of any cash refund. A concession extended to manufacturers and incentives were to be credited in their PLA for being utilised to pay excise duty on sugar manufactured by them. They ar....