TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und - Appeal No. E/766/2006 - Final Order No. A/1018/2007-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 25-6-2007 - [Order per] - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/349/05 dt. 14-9-05. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 12,00,000/- on 1-4-1991. This refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation. On an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of CCE v. Modi Oil and General Mills as reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 342. It is his submission that they have paid duty subsequently, after intermediate products was consumed for the manufacture for the final product, hence unjust enrichment does not arise. 4. Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that even if payment of duty is made subsequent to the clearance of final pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as captively consumed for the manufacture of goods falling under sub-heading 5607.90 for the period 1-3-1987 to 31-5-1989. From the plain reading of the said Notification it can be seen that the period involved in the case before me is squarely covered by the exemption notification issued under Section 11C. It is an admitted fact that the appellants had cleared the final product manufactured out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective orders dated 24-10-2001 and 16-4-2002 have recorded a categoric finding of fact that the incidence of duty could not be transferred to the buyer after the date of clearance as the duty had been paid on a subsequent date. This has been held to be sufficient to replace the presumption raised under Section 12B of the Act. Therefore, we find that no question of law warranting admission of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
