M/S. Lakshmi Flexible Packaging Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/44/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a refund arises from finalisation of a provisional assessment, the refund is not barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the question being settled by the Larger Bench decision in CCE & ST, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Company Limited, which the Tribunal applied because the facts of the present case were found to be covered by it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-SKSS/108/DMN/VAPI-I/2010 dated 29.09.2010, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Daman)
M/s. Lakshmi Flexible Packaging Works : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 05.03.2015
ORDER No. A/10207 / 2015 Dated 05.03.2015
Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA-SKSS/108/DMN/VAPI-I/2010 dated 29.09.2010 under which appellants appeal was rejected on the grounds of unjust-enrichment.
2. When the case was called out for final hearing, Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri K. Sivakumar, (AR) appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Both sides agreed that refund pertain to the period 01.3.1986 and 13.3.1997 and arose as a result of finalisation of provisional assessment. That the same is not hit by unjust-enrichment, as per law laid by the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of CCE & ST, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Company Limited - [2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri. LB)]. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, (Advocate) also relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) CC vs. Hindalco Industries Limited [2008 (231) ELT 36 (Guj.)]
(ii) Contemporary Packaging Technologies Pvt. Limited vs. UOI [2014 (299) ELT 439 (Guj.)]
(iii) Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. CCE, Vadodara-I [2015 (315) ELT 49 (Tri. Ahmd.)]
3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Both sides agree that in view of the relied upon case laws by the appellant the case is covered by the Larger Bench judgment in the case of CCE & ST, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Company Limited (supra). On verification of the same, I also find it so. In view of the settled preposition of law, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free