Page 108 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

290 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2. In these circumstances, we see no reason why Direction No. (iv) in
Paragraph 47 of the impugned judgment should not be set aside. We order ac-
cordingly.
3. However, O.S. No. 7 of 2007 pending before the District Court,
Tuticorin may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, if pending.
4. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 290 (Raj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
K.S. Jhaveri and Inderjeet Singh, JJ.
BSL LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EX. (APPEALS), JAIPUR-II
D.B. Customs Appeal No. 1 of 2006 with D.B. Customs Appeal No. 2 of 2006,
decided on 23-8-2017
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Excess payment of duty on woollen yarn
used and consumed captively - Refund order passed by competent authority
i.e. Superintendent, Central Excise Range-I - Adjudication of same issue not
appropriate in refund application, more particularly when specific declaration
made by assessee that tax paid was part of price which has been recovered -
Tribunal and all other authorities committed serious error in refusing to re-
fund amount - Authority directed to refund amount as directed by Superin-
tendent in order dated 7-6-2000 - Section 27(1) of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 12,
13, 14]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Grasim Industries — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 594 (S.C.) — Referred .............................. [Para 9]
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (171) E.L.T. 12 (Tribunal) — Referred ............ [Paras 8, 9]
Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
— (2012) 25 taxmann.com 496 (Raj.) — Referred ....................................................................... [Para 9]
Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. — 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Para 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Umang Gupta, for the Appellant.
Shri Anuroop Singhi, for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged
the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dis-
missed the appeal preferred by the assessee.
2. This Court while admitting the appeals on 31-1-2006 has framed the
following substantial questions of law :-
“(i) Whether the provisions of unjust enrichment inserted in Rule
9(B)(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide Notification No.
45/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-6-1999 could be invoked and applied

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  108