Shah, J. - (1.) M/s. Hindustan Metal Pressing Works removed the excisable goods at the effective rate of duty awaiting approval of their classification list No. 2/88 in which they claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986. In pursuance of the approval of the classification list on 21-6-1988, the Range Superintendent granted the refund of excise duty for the months of April 1988 to August 1988.
(2.) Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 22-2-1989 was issued for recovering the said amount on the ground that it was erroneously refunded. By order dated 8-2-1990, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise confirmed the demand for a sum of Rs. 2,36,515.55 on the basis of principles of unjust enrichment by the assessee. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) by judgment and order dated 20-11-1990. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) also dismissed the appeal by impugned judgment and order dated 20-10-1999. That order is challenged by filing this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below are, on the face of it, illegal and dehors the statutory provision. He contended that the foundation for initiating the proceedings under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the present case is so-called erroneous refund of the excise duty paid by the appellant. At the time when the refund order was passed on the basis of Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), there was no question of erroneous refund. It was based on assessment of RT-12. Admittedly, there is no mistake or error in such assessment or refund. Hence, it is his submission that principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable in the present case.;