TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds the SCN which is now sought as refund in view of Commissioner (Appeals) order. Therefore, appellant has produced sufficient evidence on payment of duty in RG-23C Part II. As regards unjust enrichment clause, we find that entire demand arose out of differential duty worked out in each invoice. The goods were already cleared during the period 3.4.96 to 31.3.97 whereas the SCN was issued subsequently. On perusal of the amount involved, they have made the payment by way of RG-23C Part-II and therefore question of unjust enrichment does not arise. - appellants are eligible for refund amount debited in RG.23C-Part-II as re-credit of cenvat credit - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1231/2004 - FINAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is reflected as per the annexure to SCN starting from 3.4.96 to 31.3.97 and listed out all the invoices and the amounts involved. He further submitted that they have also submitted proof of payment of duty and produced copy of Extract of RG.23C Part-II. He submits that they have paid an amount of ₹ 1,07,245/- by debiting in RG.23C Part-II on 1.7.1997 at Sl.No.1. He submits that this amount related to goods which were already cleared and the amount involved is ₹ 11, 20/- and upto ₹ 53,000/-. They never raised any supplementary invoice. They neither issued any credit note nor debit note. He submits that this demand was issued by department as per annexure to SCN and they complied with SCN by debiting in RG.23C Part II. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 which clearly shows that at Sl.No.1, there is an endorsement in the RG-23C Part II showing payment of ₹ 1,07,245/- towards SCN OC NO.403/97 dt.31.3.97. This debit was made towards the SCN which clearly confirms that appellant debited entire amount in RG-23C Part II as a proof of payment towards the SCN which is now sought as refund in view of Commissioner (Appeals) order. Therefore, appellant has produced sufficient evidence on payment of duty in RG-23C Part II. As regards unjust enrichment clause, we find that entire demand arose out of differential duty worked out in each invoice. The goods were already cleared during the period 3.4.96 to 31.3.97 whereas the SCN was issued subsequently. On perusal of the amount involved, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
