TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellant has opted duty from the exemption on 10.07.2007 is also not correct because the appellants have not filed any declaration 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/367/2009-SM - Final Order No. 22006 - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri K. Krishnamurthy, Consultant - For the Appellant Shri Parasivamurthy N.K, Deputy Commissioner (AR) - For the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrichment and after following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of ₹ 5,15,367/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Seven only) under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the same was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the learned Commissioner vide the impugned order has upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the submissions of the appellant and also withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all these disputed invoices. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the appellant though has shown the excise duty in the invoices but the same has not been taken from the buyers. Further I also find that both the authorities have not considered the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant who has verified from the records and has certified that the appellants have not collected the duty from the buyer with regard to the disputed invoices. Further I also find that the appellants have not collected the duty from the buyers and have borne the duty by themselves. Therefore the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
