9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. The appellant filed this application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No.FO/A/76410/2016 dated 27.12.2016. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Revenue filed the appeal against the portion of the refund claim of Rs. 10,40,192/-, which was paid from the Proforma Credit and Modvat Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.6.99, appears not applicable. In view above, and also the decision of the Tribunal dated 20.1.2005 which has not been appealed against, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner, Digboi's order to the extent that doctrine of unjust enrichment was applicable in the case was not correct & legal. 9. However, the Commissioner (A)'s decision that the rejection of amount of Rs. 10,40,192.00 on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proform credit/modvat credit earned on inputs towards payment of duty in respect of exempted product, (in this case Aqueous solution of UF/PF Resin). Hence the amount of proforma credit/modvat credit, used for payment of duty on exempted product, was correctly disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, the issue being in the matter of question of law, and the relevant facts of the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the words "to the extent of refund of Rs. 10,40,192/-" would be inserted. 5. The ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that it is illegal for the department to contend that since the amount of duty of Rs. 10,40,192/- was paid on the non-excisable goods from proforma credit and modvat account, even though otherwise refundable cannot be refunded. In my considered view, as the Tribunal remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
