9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ansurkar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) granting refund of duty of Rs. 3,98,729.28 (Rupees three lakhs ninety-eight thousand seven hundred twenty-nine only), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. As per facts on record the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ready-made Garments, Sarees and Furniture. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (N.T.), dt. 30-4-2001 w.e.f. April 2002. (c) Assessee was liable for penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 equal to the duty confirmed. (d) Recovery of appropriate interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Based on the above order, assessee filed a refund claim on 14-5-04. The said claim was rejected by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incidence of duty has not been passed on to buyer as such. Uniformity may be due to various factors-costing of goods in hands of distributor, cost element and treatment given to purchases by buyer in his own account were relevant circumstances. It is also the Revenue's contention that inasmuch as assessees had paid the duty on the entire contract price, which according to his own admission is cum- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to put-forth their defence. 6. At this stage I may clarify that if the refund claimed by the respondents is out of the amount deposited by them during the course of investigation and related to prior proceedings, provisions of unjust enrichment would not apply. As the said issue is not clear from the records, I direct the original adjudicating authority to look into the said aspect and decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
