9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein, is engaged in the manufacture of Bio-95 and Herbal Pet wash, falling under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the respondent had classified the said products under Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t during the course of investigation. The refund application was allowed by the Original Authority. On appeal filed by Revenue, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also upheld the adjudication order, holding that the respondent should be eligible for refund benefit and the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable for such refund claim amount. Feeling aggrieved with impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II - 2015 (317) ELT 379 (Tri.-Mumbai). 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that though in the financial year 2005-06, the respondent had received the differential Central Excise duty from its buyers through debit notes, but a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty benefit all along and utilised such amount for its business requirement. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent had suffered any injury or loss on account of payment of such differential duty, for which the refund claimed amount should be paid to it and not credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Further, on perusal of the Balance Sheet for the year 2005-06, I find that refund amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
