9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings were initiated against the respondents for denying exemption during the period from 5-10-2001 to 31-3-2002 on the ground that their factory was not located in the rural area and the SSI exemption in respect of branded goods of others would not be available to them. Hence they stated paying duty under protest. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise Mangalore dropped the proceedings. Based on the decision of the Addl. Commissioner, the respondents filed two refund claims for Rs. 4,75,750/- and Rs. 4,30,965/-. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim of the respondents. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order in favour of the respondents. 3. Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R submitted that the respondents have passed on the duty incidents to the buyers and are not entitled for the refund in view of the unjust enrichment. 6. The learned advocates adduced the following arguments (1) M/s Crystal Marketing for whom the respondents had manufactured and cleared the goods had stated in their letter dated 30-3- 2002 that they cannot absorb any additional duties and levies etc., on the agreed prices and that the respondents have to bill at the same prices which were charged earlier. The buyer had thus accepted to pay only the agreed price for the goods and not any amount of duty. (2) The respondents informed the department through letter dated 3-4-2002 that the prices of the packaged water will not be increased and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 172) E.L.T. 310 (Cal.)] (c) Himatsingka Seide Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore [2005(191) E.L.T. 885 (Tribunal) = 2005 (128) ECR 105 (T.-Bang.) (d) CCE, Nasik v. N.G. Thakkar & Sons [2004(166) E.L.T. 115 (Tri. Mum.) (e) CCE, Bhubaneshwar v. Chariot Cement Co. [2003(158) E.L.T. 521 (T.-Kol.)] (f) Panihati Rubber Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta [2001(127) E.L.T. 742] (g) Infar (India) Ltd., v. CC, New Delhi [2002(150) E.L.T. 411 (T. Del.) 7. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. The re fund arises on account of the fact that the respondents were entitled for the benefit of exemption notification and on the insistence of the department they paid duty under protest. There is no dispute regarding the entitlement of the respondents for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Bottles 1.2 Ltr @Rs. 69.00/case of 12 Bottles 2 Ltr @Rs. 78.00/case.of 12 Bottles 5 Ltr @Rs. 10.00/Can of 5 Ltr (Bisleri Cans) 5 Ltr @Rs. 8.00/Can of 5 Ltr (Distributor's Cans) 20 Ltr @Rs. 19.00/Jars of Bisleri 20 Ltr @Rs. 15.00/Jars of 20 Ltrs. of distributors Please rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
