AMAR DYE CHEM LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Shri Desai waives service. Heard counsel.

(2.) THE petitioners re-submitted refund application dated April 13, 1988 in accordance with the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated November 18, 1987. The petitioners claimed refund of Rs. 64,22,994. 18 in respect of excess duty recovered by the Department for the period commencing from March 1, 1984 to August 31, 1984 the petitioners also claimed refund of duty of Rs. 62,05,917. 49 in respect of period commencing from September 1, 1984 and ending with February 28, 1986. Few facts which gave rise to these refund applications are as follows :

(3.) BY order dated May 25, 1989, the applications for refund were turned down by reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and others reported in 1988 (38) Excise Law Times 27. The order of the Assistant Collector proceeded on the basis that as the petitioners have recovered duty from the customers during the relevant period, the claim for refund is not maintainable. The petitioners carried appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector and the appeal was allowed by the Collector of Central excise (Appeals) by order dated October 26, 1989. The Collector held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable and cannot be resorted to by the authorities created under the statute and the order of refund must follow. The Department carried appeal against the order of collector before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal but the appeal ended in dismissal by order dated May 7, 1990. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal reiterated the earlier view in the case of M/s. Anand Metal and Steel Works v. Collector, central Excise reported in 1989 (41) Excise Law Times 351. The Tribunal directed the Excise authorities not to decline refund on the ground of unjust enrichment.