9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appeal No. E/694/2005 - Final Order No. 463/2007, - Dated:- 18-4-2007 - [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No.27/2005 dated 29-7-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Hyderabad. 2. The appellant cleared Dot Matrix and Line Matrix from the factory to the depots. At the time of clearance from the factory d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not tenable and also hit by unjust enrichment. Further Show Cause Notice was issued for rejecting a refund claim for ₹ 6,04,188/- for the period from January 2003 to March 2003 under the provisions of Section 11B(d) of Central Excise Act, 2001 read with Section 11D. The lower authority confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notices. The Commissioner (A) upheld the orders of the lower au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any unjust enrichment. To put it differently, when the goods are cleared from the factory at higher value, higher duty is paid to the Revenue but when the gods are sold to the buyers at lesser value, lesser duty burden is passed on to them. Thus, the differential duty is borne by the appellant. Hence, unjust enrichment will not arise. 3.1 There is substance in the contention of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing decisions: (i) Voltas Ltd. v. CCE C - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 355 (T) (ii) Sree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 631 (T) (iii) Doothat Tea Estate Kanoi Plantation (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 386 (T) (iv) La Opala RG Ltd. v. CCE, JSR -2002 (149) E.L.T. 164 (T) 3.3 In view of the above observations, it is clear that (i) the appellants are entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
