JAIPUR POLYSPIN LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal dated 28.10.1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected on account of limitation. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that refund claim was filed as consequential relief in pursuance of CEGAT Final Order No. 897/98 -D dated 27.10.1998. The refund claim was filed on 17.12.1998. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of General Engg, Works v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in, 1999 (31) RLT 488 (Tribunal) and to say that refund claim filed to pursuance of an Appellate order is not subject to the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rules. He, however, fairly admits that the provisions of unjust enrichment were applicable on such refund.

(2.) IN this case the refund claim was filed on 17.12.1998 in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.10.1998. The refund claim was rejected only on the ground of time bar. The Tribunal in the case of General Engg. Works v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in, 1999 (31) RLT 488 held that such refund claims are not subject to the limitation as prescribed to the Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Therefore, finding of the lower authorities that the refund claim is time bar is not sustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in, 1997 (94) ELT 3 (SC) held that the principles of unjust enrichment will be applicable in the cases where the refund arises out of order passed by the Court. Therefore, the present refund is also subject to the principles of unjust enrichment. Hence the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant.