COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI versus M/S. T.V.S. SUZUKI LTD. HOSUR

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 06-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU, B.N. SRIKRISHNA, G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI 
A 
v. 
M/S. T.V.S. SUZUKI LTD. HOSUR 
AUGUST 6, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND GP. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Act, 1944; Rule 9B(5) and its Proviso & Section JJB: 
Refund claim-Proviso to Rule 9B(5) vis-a-vis Section 11 B-Applicability 
of-Held: Refund claim after adjustment under Rule 9B(5) would not be C 
governed by the restrictions under Section 11 B--Since Proviso to Rule 9B(5) 
was introduced when refund claim of the assessee was pending with the 
Revenue, right of the assessee does not get defeated by the subsequent 
amendment in the provision of law--Tribunal rightly held that claim/or refund 
had to be decided in accordance with the existing law. 
Assessee, a Public Sector Undertaking, filed an application for refund D 
claim after completion of final assessment. Assistant Commissioner, 
Central Excise, rejected the claim on the ground of limitation. But the 
order was reversed by the appellate authority and it was affirmed by the 
CEGA T. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended for the Revenue that since the refund claim of the E 
assessee was pending with the Revenue, when Proviso to sub rule (5) of 
Rule 98 was introduced by way of an amendment, it had to be adjudicated 
in accordance with the amended provision of law. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Merely because the departmental authorities took a long time 
to process the application for refund, the right of the assessee does not 
get defeated by the subsequent amendment made in sub-rule (5) of Rule 
98 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise and 
F 
the CEGAT were, therefore, justified in holding that the claim for refund G 
made by the assessee had to be decided in accordance with law laid down 
by this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and would not be governed by 
the proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 98. (284-C, DJ 
Ma/at/al Industries Ltd and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 5 
sec 536, followed. 
281 
H 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd v. C.C.E. Aurangabad, [2002) 
143 ELT 17 (SC) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Mis. Star 
Paper Mills Ltd,[2003) 7 SCC 27, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2000. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21. 7 .1999 of the Central Excise, 
c 
D 
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras in A. No. E/ 
3292/98 in F.O. No. 1786 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 2891, 8380/2001 and 610-611 of 2002. 
M.L. Verma, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, P. Manish and B.K. Prasad for the 
Appellant. 
Rajendra Singhvi, Ashok K. Singh, V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Aolk Yadav, 
V. Balachandran and Staish K. Agnihotri for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the· Court was delivered by 
SRIKRISHNA, J. 
Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2000 
E 
On 5. 7 .1996 the respondent filed an application for refund claim of Rs. 
1,48,58,630.94 after the final assessment was completed. The Assistant 
Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 9.7 1996 
as to why the claim should not be rejected for non-compliance with Section 
11 B of the Central Exdse Act, 1944. After considering the reply filed by the 
F respondent the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by his order 17th 
July, 1996 rejected the refund claim of the respondent on the ground that the 
refund claim had been made beyond the period of limitation and that 
respondent was unable to show that the amount of excise duty for which the 
refund was claimed, had not been passed on to any other person. On appeal, 
the Commissioner of Central Excise, in his order dated 19th June, 1998 
G observed that on the date on which the Assistant Commissioner of Central 
Excise made the above order (i.e 17.7.1996), the assessment was only 
provisional and that the assessment was finalised only on 25.7.1996. In the 
circumstances, the Commissioner was of the view that the refund claim was 
not time barred. Following the law laid down by this Court in Ma/at/a/ 
H Industries Ltd. & Ors. Y. Union of India & Ors., [1997] 5 SCC 536, he held 
C.C.E. v.T.V.S. SUZUKI LTD. [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 
283 
that the concept of unjust enrichment would not be attracted on finalisation A 
of provisional assessments. He consequently allowed the refund claim. On 
appeal the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 
referred to as 'CEGA T') agreed with the view of the Commissioner and 
dismissed the appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.