9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation from the respondents. 3. Heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim that arose consequent to the appeal filed by the respondent being decided in their favour. Both lower authorities in this case have held that the refund which has arisen, is due to the fact that the respondent had paid the entire amount subsequent to the clearance, and was being disputed by the respondent. Both lower authorities have held that the respondent have deposited the amount on the direction of the Revenue. On this factual matrix, the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are very relevant which is are under:- "I have carefully gone through the case records and the various su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty is paid much after the clearances of goods from the factory, merely because the said duty is shown as Expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account, the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply in the case of refund of the said duty; that the ratio laid down in the said case is fully applicable in their case. In this regard it is observed that the scrap was sold against the tender dated 13-2-2001, 5-3-2001 and 30-6-2001 under commercial invoice and Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,88,670/- was debited vide RG 23 C Part II E. No. 422 dated 29-10-2001 as per the direction of Anti Evasion Officers. It is not disputed that duty was paid much after the actual clearance of the scrap to the customers under commercial invoices where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are different. In view of the above, there is no force in the stand of the department and the bar of unjust enrichment therefore, will not be applicable in this case. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the order of the Adjudicating authority." It can be seen from the above reproduced finding that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the law as settled by the various decisions by the Tribunal and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Modi Oil & General Mills as reported at [2007 (210) E.L.T. 342 (P & H)] is held as under :- "We have heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and find that no question of law would arise warranting acceptance of prayer of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
