TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty under Compounded Levy Scheme attracts the principles of unjust-enrichment. - Appellant should be given an opportunity to place this certificate before the adjudicating authority to establish that the duty was not passed on to the customers, in the interest of justice. - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. : E/533/2008 - ORDER No. A/10007 / 2015 - Dated:- 5-1-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant : Shri Kuntal Parikh, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri J. Nair, A.R Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots classifiable under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had opted for payment of duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 01.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of unjust-enrichment would not be applicable as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE ST, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Company Limited - 2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri. Larger Bench). He also relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (a) B.S. Processors vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2011 (270) ELT 289 (Tri. Ahmd.) (b) Hindustan Composite Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2014 (304) ELT 574 (Tri. Mum.) (c) CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Anjani Fabrics Limited - 2008 (229) ELT 412 (Tri. Ahmd.) He also relied upon the Board Circular No. 326/42/97-CX dated 25.7.1997, wherein it is stated that in case there is likely to be any delay in determining the capacity of production it may be determined on a provisional basis. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. UOI - 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shivagrico Implements Limited (supra) rejected the appeal on an identical issue, filed by the assessee. In my considered view, the said decisions are squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Panasonic Battery India Company Limited (supra), as relied upon by the Learned Advocate, is in the context of payment of duty under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present case, the appellant had not paid duty under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Rules. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of B.S. Processors (supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
