TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njust enrichment. As against the above categorical findings, the Revenue has not adduced any evidence that the respondent had recovered the said duty from their customers. In absence of any contrary evidence, I find that the impugned order is well reasoned one and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2418/2003 - A/698/2008-WZB/C-II/(SMB) - Dated:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that they have paid excess duty, they filed refund claim. It is undisputed that the respondent had paid excess amount of Rs. 33,949/- for the period 13-3-00 to 19-3-00. The final products manufactured by the respondent were exempted from the duty and they were paid duty on intermediate product. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), while setting aside the Order-in-Original came to the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no unjust enrichment. In this connection the duty was under protest and not recoverable. Therefore, the refund of duty cannot be denied to them. 5. As against the above said findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue s grounds of the appeal read as under : - (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has merely stated that since duty was paid erroneously on intermediate goods me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly applies to Central Excise law also, even though it pertains to a Customs case. This view has been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court itself while deciding the case in Civil Appeal No. 7189 of 1999 in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Star Paper Mills Ltd. This was accordingly clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 523/19/2000-CE, dated 6-4-2000 to the field formations. (iv) In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
