9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out payment of duty to these buyers. Proceedings were initiated on the ground that such waste was liable to duty and duty of Rs.19,15,268/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs, Fifteen Thousands,Two Hundreds and Sixty Eight only) was demanded. During the course of investigation, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only). The issue was finally decided in favour of the appellant by order of Commissioner (Appeals) dt.18.09.2002, holding that waste and scrap are not excisable. Pursuant to this favourable order, the respondents filed a refund claim of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) paid by them during the course of investigation. This refund was sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority, against which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that there was no unjust enrichment. Therefore, in this case also, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have upheld the order. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent even though the notice has been issued. There is no adjournment request also. However, cross objection has been filed by the respondent which is taken into consideration. The respondent has stated that they could not appear for personal hearing offered since the hearing notices were in the possession of Shri Vijay Mishra, who was looking after the Excise related matters and was handling the case on behalf of the company. However, Shri Vijay Mishra resigned, but communication for personal hearing was not handed over by him. Therefore, the appellant could not appear for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty element, which was subsequently demanded by the adjudicating authority but set aside by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, I am not able to understand how the original adjudicating authority could come to the conclusion that duty has been collected. The appellant had shown consolidated amount since there was no duty. The facts of the case are peculiar and circumstances are also different, and therefore, one cannot apply the ratio of other decisions to this case. Further, I also find that the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order that he had directed the original adjudicating authority to conduct detailed verification, was not followed. Further, the Commissioner has also taken note of the fact that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
