TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order]. The Revenue is aggrieved in the Order-in-Appeal No. 208/04-C.E., dated 21-9-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the review application filed by the Revenue sanctioning refund claim and also holding that there is no unjust enrichment to the assessee in the matter. The Commissioner has analysed the entire facts of the case including the provisions of law and had held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (T). On this very point in that case also the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board had brought into existence certain items which were not goods and captively consumed. They had paid duty on those items like in the present case. The Tribunal held that the grant of refund by holding that the provisions of Section 11B is not applicable is a correct order, as the Revenue had not discharged the initial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly applicable to the facts of the case. The Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been clearly distinguished that the goods which were consumed in the factory were as a result of manufacture. While in the present case, there was no manufacture of the goods and the final products was also not sold. Therefore, the judgment of M/s. BPL (supra) and M/s. Rado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... organisation and therefore the items, which came into existence, on which duty was paid, were not goods and final products were also not sold. Therefore, the duty paid was required to be refunded. Hence, the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. PCC Pole Factory (supra) is required to be correctly applied to the facts of the present case. There is no merit in this appeal and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
