TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the refund amount. It is neither the Department’s claim nor any evidence to produce to show that during the period of dispute, the price charged by the Abu Road unit for the final product - ABS Polymer was higher. - In this case, there is no unjust enrichment in the sense that the incidence of duty whose refund has been claimed had been passed on by the appellant unit to Abu Road unit. - Refund allowed - Decided in favour of assesse. - Appeal Nos. 57110-57115 of 2013 (SM) - Final Order No. 54246-54251/2014 - Dated:- 27-10-2014 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the amounts of ₹ 1,40,503/-, ₹ 4,82,393/-, ₹ 4,91,757/-, ₹ 7,75,366/, ₹ 4,96,940/- and ₹ 4,99,064/-. These refund claims were decided by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who by 6 separate orders, each dated 07/03/12 allowed the same. While examining the refund claims, the angle of unjust enrichment was also examined and as per the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, the unjust enrichment was not involved. Here, it may also be mentioned while the Satnoor unit of appellant filed these refund claims, the Abu Road unit reversed the Cenvat credit of the duty whose refund was sought by the Satnoor unit, as initially when the Satnoor unit had cleared the HRG powder and E-SAN powder to Abu Road un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of dispute i.e. November 2011, the Abu Road unit of the appellant in respect of final product (ABS Polymer) charged higher price and accordingly had passed on the incidence of the excess duty paid on the HRG powder and E-SAN powder to the customers, that the judgments of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Excel Rubber Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (268) E.L.T. 419 (Tri. - LB) and the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Steel Strips Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2010 (262) E.L.T. 129 (P H) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the clearances of intermediate product - HRG powder and E-SAN powder by Satnoor unit to Abu Roa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The refund claim is in respect of duty paid on the intermediate products HRG powder and E-SAN powder during the month of November 2011, when these two intermediate products were being stock transferred by the Satnoor unit to Abu Road unit. There is no dispute about the fact that the Abu Road unit at that time had taken the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the goods. It is also not in dispute that when Satnoor unit file six refund claims totalling ₹ 25,85,523/- on finalization of the provisional assessment for November 2011, the Abu Road unit who had taken the Cenvat credit, reversed the Cenvat credit of the same amount. The point of dispute is as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
