TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the relevant date as date of duty payment - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1076-1078/2010-EX[SM] - A/70660-70662/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) None, for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeals are filed by the appellants against Order-in-Appeal No.196-198-CE/Lko/09 dated 16/11/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Customs (Appeals), Lucknow. The issue in these appeals is whether the appellant is entitled to refund of duty paid and whether the claim of refund have been rightly rejected as time-barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 53,260/- 3. E/1078/2010 196-198-CE/Lk0/09 dated 16/1 1/2009 02.08.06 to 21.2.07 2,45,214/- 1,72,616/- 72,598/- On scrutiny of the refund claims, it appeared to revenue that these claims are hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and accordingly, appellant was required to show cause, as to why not the refund claim is rejected in view of the determination of value of goods at the time of removal and payment of duty thereon under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Show cause notices were adjudicated vide different Orders-in-Original, rejecting the refund claim in part and allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods, appellants had paid duty on the HV-LV Coils, which are manufactured by them. The appellants have not paid the duty on the transformers as such. Thus, the courts below have erred, treating the goods received for repairing or remaking as the return of goods cleared. The appellant has received transformers which had got old or damaged in the course of the use by the concerned Electricity Board and as such repairing/remaking of such Transformers is not classifiable of clause (b) of Section 11B of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant has prayed for allowing the appeal. 7. Having considered the rival contention, I am satisfied that it is not a case of goods returned for being remade, refined, reconditioned, etc. These are the goods which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
