Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
General Engg. Works vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 5 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(65)ECC89, 1999(111)ELT86(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. These are four appeals filed by M/s. General Engineering Works with reference to the common impugned order dated 14-2-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.
2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that issue was with reference to the inspection charges. Originally the Assistant Collector has disallowed the claim of the party with reference to the inspection charges in determining the assessable value. Party has filed an appeal against that order and the matter went upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the party with consequential relief. In pursuance to the order of the Tribunal, the party has filed refund claims. Refund claims have been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the claim was not lodged within six months as stipulated under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Shri Anand submits that it is settled position now that since the matter was pending before the Appellate Forum and in pursuance of that order the party has filed refund claims, hence time limit under Section 11B is not applicable.
3. On hearing both the sides, we concur with the argument of the learned Counsel and, accordingly, the Assistant Collector was not right in rejecting the refund claims as barred by time.
4. The next question remains in these cases whether the refund claim is subject to the unjust enrichment as per amended provisions of Section 11B. This issue has also been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 holding that amended provisions of Section 11B are applicable even to the pending cases. In view of this, the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the issue afresh on merit with reference to the amended provisions of Section 11B even with reference to the unjust enrichment.
5. Shri K.K. Anand fairly conceded that in respect of Appeal No. E/706/96-A the party has passed duty element to the customers and, accordingly, refund claim is hit by the provisions of unjust enrichment as per Section 11B of the Act. In view of this, Appeal No. E/706/96-A is hereby dismissed.
6. Appeal Nos. E/670-672/96-A are remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to examine the issue with reference to the unjust enrichment and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the assessees.
7. Thus, Appeal Nos. E/670-672/96-A are allowed by way of remand.