TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent filed refund claim in time of excess duty paid by them. The matter is to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain whether the respondents are required to pay any duty after adjusting the excess duty paid by them against the duty demanded from them - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/1059/2009-Mum & C/978/2010-Mum and Cross Objection No. C/CO/36/2011 - Final Order Nos. A/1181-1183/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 16-5-2013 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and S.K. Gaule, Member (T) Shri P.S. Sodhi, Commissioner (AR), for the Appellant. Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the impugned order wherein excess duty paid by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced a copy of one of the memoranda of appeals filed with the lower appellate authority, and we have perused the same. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the lower appellate authority reads thus : 8. It is respectfully submitted that the said differential cess has been arrived at based on the higher-side receipt quantities than the delivered quantities. Conspicuously missing aspect in this is the lesser-side receipt quantities than the delivered quantities. If both these aspects are considered, together there would be a refund due to the Ravva Joint Venture to the tune of ₹ 1.37 crores approx. It is not in dispute that the law as it stood during the period of dispute required the respondent to file monthly ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered. This is another reason for setting aside the impugned order. 4.1 We further found that the learned Advocate for the respondent relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 698 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein the Tribunal held that as the selling price of the petroleum products have been fixed by the Government of India under APM regime, the question of unjust enrichment does not apply. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we hold that the respondents are entitled for adjustment of excess duty paid towards short duty paid by them, as the respondent filed refund claim in time of excess duty paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
