COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. IPCA LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of all the above captioned three appeals which have been directed by the Revenue against the common order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the three refund claims of the respondents.

(2.) The learned SDR has contested the correctness of the impugned order on two grounds; firstly that the assessments of the respondents were final and since they did not challenge the assessment orders, could not claim the refund of the duty. He has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of S. Kumars Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 146; Hindustan Wires Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi -II, 2003 (151) E.L.T. 679; and Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 2004 (172) E.L.T. 33. He has also relied upon the Ministry's Circular bearing No. 354/81/2000/TRU, dated 30 -6 -2000 under which the respondents were required to ask for the provisional assessment before the clearance of the goods, which they did not do.

(3.) Secondly, that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the case of the respondents. He has contended that under this doctrine also, the respondents are not entitled for the refund of the duty. He has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of MRF Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 (S.C) and Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/s. Aristocraft International Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 699 which had been approved by the Apex Court also as reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. A97 (S.C.)