SUBROS LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance raised in these three appeals of M/s Subros Limited is the denial of refund claims made by them in respect of supply of motor vehicle parts to Maruti Udyog Ltd.

(2.) Lower authorities rejected the claim partly oh the basis of time -bar and partly is on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is not in dispute that part of the refund claim fell outside the normal period stipulated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Appellants have contended that supplies were against on long terms contract with Maruti Udyog Ltd. and since those contracts contained provision for price revision/the assessable value and duty paid should be treated as provisional we are unable to find merit in this submission. It is well settled that the normal time -limit for refund would apply to all cases unless they fall under the exception of original payment of duty being on provisional assessment. This position applies equally to supplies made against contracts having provision for price revision [(A. Infrastructure Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur, 2000 (67) ECC 613 (T) : 2000 (117) ELT 583 (T)]. In view of this legal position, the lower authorities were right in determining that part of the refund claims were beyond time -limit.

(3.) On the second issue of unjust enrichment, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that since prices are subject to variation, invariably, price and duty are adjusted between parties and therefore, the question of unjust enrichment cannot arise. He has, in support of, this relied on a letter dated 12.12.98 of Maruti Udyog Ltd. which contains the following statement: