9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd., Sitapur against Directorate of Sugar (Ministry of Food) New Delhi's release order dated 28-10-98. The sugar was cleared on payment of duty at the rate applicable to free sale sugar. Subsequently, Directorate of Sugar under their letter dated 17-11-98 modified their letter dated 28-10-98 making it clear that levy sugar is being purchased from part of free sale s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their record instead of asking for refund for differential amount. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. It was pleaded that quota of levy sugar and free sale sugar is decided by the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food. Now once this quota is decided, the factory has to clear the sugar at the rate applicable to levy sugar or free sale sugar. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid at the free sale rate to anybody. Therefore, the refund should be allowed. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal's decision in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I, Final Order No. 1848/2005-SM(BR), dated 5-8-2005 [2006 (193) E.L.T. 585 (T)] wherein the identical situation, the Tribunal allowed the refund for differential duty. 3. It was pleaded for the Revenue that wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, the duty burden was borne by the appellants. Therefore, they are entitled for the refund. I, following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Final Order No. 1848/05-SM(BR), set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal. The refund be paid to the appellants for the differential duty.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
