Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - BangaloreBharat Products vs Cc And Ce on 28 August, 1996Equivalent citations: 1997(68)ECR160(TRI.-BANGALORE)ORDER
 

K. Sankararaman, Member (T)1. The appellants had filed five refund claims before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise which were duly sanctioned by that authority. Subsequently, as authorised by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, an appeal was filed by the Assistant Collector before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore for the setting aside of the refund sanction on the ground that the ultimate consumers had already borne the burden of duty element. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal partially insofar as the sanction of two refunds arising from Notification 175/86, as amended by Notification 119/89 dt. 27.4.1989 enchancing the value limit for eligibility for small scale industry benefit from Rs. 150 lakhs to Rs. 200 lakhs was considered. The Collector (Appeals), while allowing the department's appeal had directed the respondents before him (appellants herein) to deposit the amount of refund which they had obtained in respect of their clearances during the period from 1.4.1989 to 18.9.1989. Hence the present appeal, which by their subsequent application dt. 31.3.1995, is limited to one refund matter of Rs. 3,49,556/-.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the Departmental Representative for the respondent Collector and perused the record.3. The Collector (Appeals) has passed the impugned order which is dt. 24.1.1992 on the ground that the question of refund had to be decided in accordance with the amendments made toSection 11Bof Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991. We agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel that the amendment in question applied only to pending refund claims and claims made after the coming into force of the amending Act. In their case the refund claims had been sanctioned and these were not pending when the Act came to be passed. Section 11B(2) as amended provides for the Assistant Collector to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund wherever he finds any amount of duty is refundable. Since here the claims had been sanctioned by him and, in fact, even the refund amounts had been paid to the appellants, the said provision is not applicable. The High Court of Calcutta had held inGopal Hosiery v. Assistant Collectorthat the amended provision cannot apply to cases where refund applications had been disposed of and refund orders had been made. Such a case could not be reopened.Section 11Dof the Act also does not come into the picture as what it lays down is that any person who has collected any amount from the buyer of any goods shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. The appellants had done so when they paid the duty initially. This provision does not provide for the refund already sanctioned and paid to the claimants to be paid to the credit of the Central Government. Accordingly, We set aside the order in appeal and allow the appeal.