2007 (8) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority through which allowed that appellant is entitle for the credit of duty paid on the rejected goods tribunal rejected the revenue appeal on the ground that there is no infirmity in the impugned order

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of duty paid by an EOU on clearances made to DTA for the first time.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 21-6-2006 regarding the refund of duty paid by the respondents as an EOU on clearances made to DTA for the first time. The respondent received back the duty paid goods in the factory premises and issued the same for further process. They filed a refund claim for the duty paid on the first clearance, which was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The revenue appealed the order on the grounds that there is no provision in Central Excise Law to grant a refund on rejected goods and that there was no refund application for the duty paid the second time.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the revenue, stating that there was no dispute over the twice payment of duty on the same goods. The Commissioner found that the claim filed by the respondent was for the duty paid for the first clearance, and they provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate to establish that no duty incidence had been passed on. The Commissioner noted that the revenue did not challenge the unjust enrichment factor before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the Commissioner upheld the impugned order and rejected the department's appeal.

In conclusion, the Commissioner correctly rejected the appeal of the revenue based on the lack of challenge regarding the double payment of duty and the unjust enrichment factor. The impugned order was deemed correct and upheld, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.