9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the period July 2000 to September 2006 on the ground that the said product Servo Chainkote is also sold to independent customers from their various marketing godowns and the calculation of excess duty includes such clearances and also that the said claims are hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 27 and 34 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in their Grease Plant at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. Servo Chainkote being among various products manufactured by the appellant is cleared on payment of duty to their LPG bottling plant for consumption in the manufacture of liquefied petroleum gas (in short "LPG) for use as soap s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal and also deposited the confirmed amount of Rs. 40,86,469/- along with equal penalty and interest of Rs. 36,11,000/- under protest. The appellant was paying duty on assessable value arrived at based on their internal cost. As the valuation was questioned by the department, the appellant engaged the services of practicing Cost Accountant for ascertaining the cost of production and in accordance with CAS-4 certificate, obtained certificate from the Cost Accountant and submitted to the jurisdictional superintendent. As per the said CAS-4 certificate, the assessable value was less than the assessable value at which the appellant paid duty. As it appeared that the appellant had paid excess duty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand the matter back to the lower authority for de novo adjudication vide order-in-appeal dated 28.11.2006. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that the refund for the amount relating to period July 2000 to April 2004 was rejected by this Tribunal for want of COD clearance. However, the current appeal includes the amount of Rs. 1.18 crores being for a total of Rs. 2.88 crores. Further, there is no unjust enrichment as the amounts have been paid under protest and also the selling price of LPG being much below the cost price. Further, the learned counsel demonstrated the subsidy scheme giving mechanism for under-realization settlement through subsidy/upstream discount/Government bond. It is also demonstrated that bottling cost is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
