9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of water filters falling under Chapter Heading 8421 of CETA. During the year 2007-08, they were availing the exemption under Notification 8/03 CE dated 01.03.2003 and as per the notification, the appellants are entitled to clear the finished products without payment of duty upto a limit of Rs. 1.50 crores. Due to some mistakes in arriving at the date of crossing the exemption limit, the appellant felt that they have crossed b the limit on 10.07.2007 and from this date they started paying duty on goods bearing the brand name of others as well as unbranded goods. The duty paid on unbranded goods w.e.f 04.08.2007 till 10.09.2007 by mistake. Whereas the correct date exceeding the exemption limit was worked out as 10.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime to avail exemption during the period of financial year. He further submitted that this finding of the Commissioner has given an impression as if the appellants have in fact availed such declaration on that date open to pay duty from that date whereas the fact of the matter is that the appellants have not filed any such declaration to the Department in terms of Notification 8/2003 during the entire financial year. He further submitted that this finding of the learned Commissioner is clearly beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and the appellant had no opportunity to rebut the allegation during the adjudication proceedings. He further submitted that the appellant has produced all the invoices wherein the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Department in terms of Notification 8/2003 during the entire financial period and the duty was paid by mistake and was not recovered from the buyers and therefore crediting the refund of fee being sanctioned by the original authority is not sustainable in law. In support of his submission, the appellant also relied upon the decisions in the case of CCE & Cus„ Guntur Vs. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works 2011 (274) E.L.T. 113 (Tri. -Bang.) and CCE, Mysore Vs. Premier Aryco India Ltd. 2010 (260) E.L.T. 158 (Tri, -Bang.) wherein it has been held that in the Chartered Accountant' certificate that the duty liability has not been passed on to the buyer and has been observed by the assessee then the doctrine of unjust enrichment is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
