PEARL POLYMERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above captioned appeals have been filed against the impugned order -in -appeals vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the orders -in -original of the adjudicating authority rejecting three refund claims of the appellants, one of Rs. 25,45,058/ -, second of Rs. 89,726/ - and third of Rs. 2,96,491/ -

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic goods falling under Chapter 39 of the CETA. They had been paying normal duty @ 16% Adv., on the said goods up to 3 -3 -1999 and also availing Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods. But w.e.f. 4 -3 -1999, they opted for payment of concessional duty @ 8% on the said goods under Notification No. 5/99 -C.E., dated 28 -2 -99. They accordingly, reversed the credit attributable to the closing stock of inputs lying in balance with them as on 3 -3 -1999. The amount reversible/payable was worked out by them to be Rs. 25,45,058/ -. They accordingly reversed credit of Rs. 16,35,777/ -and paid the balance of Rs. 9,09,281/ - from the PLA.

(3.) THE ld. Counsel has contended that the appellants were not required to reverse the credit or pay the duty from the PLA for availing the benefit of Notification No. 5/99 -C.E. as Condition No. 10 appended to that Notification did not apply to them. He has further argued that since duty was paid under protest, the bar of limitation did not apply, in view of the proviso appended to Section 11B. The principle of unjust enrichment, according to the Counsel, also could not be invoked as the refund claims are of the Modvat credit reversed by the appellants, in view of the specific bar, under Section 11B(2) of the Act. Similarly, the refund claims of Rs. 89,726/ - and Rs. 2,96,491/ - according to the Counsel, could not be treated to be pre -matured under the law for the simple reason that some adjudication proceedings were pending.