TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the case of SBPC. Accordingly, assessee filed refund claims which were rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority. On an appeal Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee. Hence the present appeal. The relevant facts which Commissioner (Appeals) has considered are as under : (a) that the assessee is working under compounded levy scheme where duty is paid based on capacity of production and with no relation to clearances. (b) that the manufacturing activity is carried out by the manufacturer on job charges basis without any breakup of excise duties. (c) that final goods are cleared by the manufacturer to the consignee under documents which do not reflect any duty of excise. (d) that goods are processed on collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty amounting to Rs. 1,22,000/- paid on gallery for the clearance of Dec.98 to Feb.99. In this regard I rely upon following judgments :- (1) Ambala Distt. Co-Op. Milk Produces Union Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex. Panchkula - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 492 (Tri. - Del.) (2) GSFC Ltd. v. CCE Vadodara - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Mumbai) Thus, in view of the above facts, I find that the unit is entitled to refund claim of Rs. 1,22,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,57,161/- is inadmissible as the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable for the clearance of March, 99 onwards. I find the reasoning very strange that bar of unjust enrichment is applicable on clearances of March, 99 onwards and not before. The proper course of action would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and have relied upon said certificate. 2. We do not see that any question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, rejected. The appellate Tribunal in its impugned order has held that when the assessee had submitted Chartered Accountant s certificate and other relevant documents based on which both the lower authorities came to concurrent finding that the assessee had not passed on the incidence of duty to ultimate customers and when there was no contrary evidence, there was no reason to interference in the impugned order. 3. As against the above Revenue has contended that a mere Chartered Accountant s certificate is not sufficient to show that the duty burden has not been passed on to the customers. However, I find that apart from abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
