9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein their appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has failed to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellant was discharging their duty liability under the Compounded Levy Scheme. Initially their duty liability was fixed at Rs.39,356.00 per month for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 on which the appellant was paying duty and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for Rectification of Mistake of the order of this Tribunal dated 25.01.2008 on the ground that this Tribunal has not considered the Profit and Loss account and Chartered Accountant Certificate while passing the order on that ROM application also and the Tribunal again hold that vide Order No. M/134/08 dated 13.06.08 after considering the C.A. Certificate and Profit and Loss Account held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise department in the Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, therefore the refund has been rightly sanctioned and recovery order is to be set aside. To support this contention he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Paper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2009 (233) ELT 227 (Tri. - Mum) and Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chem. Ltd. v. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the reduced duty liability was issued only in 2005 and the goods have been cleared by the appellants during the impugned period 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. It is very strange to observe that the appellant had shown that the duty recoverable from the department on 31.03.2001 when the Commissioner has not redetermined the duty liability at that time not the duty was paid under protest. I also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
