COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MANALI PETROCHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has come up on appeal challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Appeal No. E/295/2003 confirming the order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Appeal No. 27 of 2003 dated 27.02.2003 by formulating the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" is not applicable for the case, since the refund is filed under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules 1944 and whether the provisions of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are not applicable to this case, when there is Apex Court judgment ruling all refunds are subject to the test of unjust enrichment ?

(3.) For the relevant year 1992 to 1994, some of the goods despatched by the assessee were returned by the consignees, as they did not meet the required specifications. The assessee after the receipt of the said goods back made an application under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called as "the Rules") after informing the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise about the return of the goods by enclosing the relevant documents, such as D-3 Declaration, Gate Pass, Transporters weigh bill etc. Totally 8 refund claims have been made. In so far as the refund claim dated 04.12.1992 is concerned, an order of refund was passed. However, show cause notices were issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Central Excise, Chennai, seeking to cancel the refund order made already and also to deny the refund claims on the sole ground that the assessee company has not complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule 173L of the Rules.