TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL NO:E/86854/2016 - A/86611/2018 - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri H P Kanade, Advocate for the appellant Shri S Hasija, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew After hearing submissions made by both sides and from the facts on record, it would appear that the dispute had its genesis way back in 1998 with a payment of ₹ 6,96,37,137 under protest by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on a demand pertaining to usage of naphtha as an input for generation of power for captive consumption against exemption notification no. 217/86-CE dated 2 nd April 1986 and 67/95-CE dated 16 th March 1995. The matter having been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjustment, and this order of the appellate authority has attained finality. 3. Accordingly, original authority held the amount of ₹ 6,81,91,432/- attributable to electricity utilized for manufacture as eligible but credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund while appropriating ₹ 14,45,705/- to Consolidated Fund of India as liable to duty. Appellant now seeks restoration of this amount which has been appropriated to the Consolidated Fund of India consequent upon decision of the first appellate authority, upholding appropriation effected by the original authority. 4. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant it was not open to the original authority, to retain a portion of the demand which has been set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 14,45,705/-, representing that duty on inputs which is attributable to the use of electricity for purpose other than manufacture. I observe that the Tribunal had, at the instance of Learned Counsel, taken note of what was, admittedly, an amount not entitled to refund. Though the Tribunal did remand the matter back to the original authority for the limited purpose of ascertainment of the applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment granting liberty to the appellant to produce before the adjudicating authority a copy of the order of the appellate authority dated 28 th March 2002 related to their claim that the issue has already been settled, subject some adjustment, in their favour. In compliance with that direction, it was not possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
