9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Briefly, the facts are: the appellants are a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacture and export of synthetic blended fabrics falling under Chapters 51, 52, 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their claim for refund of excise duty paid by them on yarn procured as raw material from indigenous suppliers during the relevant period was considered by the Assistant Commissioner and the same was rejected on the ground that they had not followed the instructions contained in Notification No. 42/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994. The assessee requested for reconsideration of the matter by letter dated 18-6-1997 on the ground that their unit was a 100% EOU and they were entitled to duty-free raw materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and since the appellants did not also have any credit balance with them. 3. When the matter came up before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the present appellants, appellants had contended, inter alia, that though the appellants were a 100% EOU, local manufacturers of yarn located in the area not being well-versed with the incentive scheme available to 100% EOU, were not willing to supply the yarn to the appellants without payment of duty and since the procedure for CT-3 certificate involved a lot of scriptory work, suppliers of small quantities of yarn were not interested to supply yarn to the appellants. Appellants contend that the authorities below had not considered the said explanations and their claim for refund had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Pesticides case [1992 (57) E.L.T. 201]. While rejecting the appellants' contentions, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that no new evidence in support of their claim had been placed before him other than those which were placed before the Assistant Commissioner. He further observed that no new grounds not relating to question of law can be taken up at the appellate stage and therefore, the new submissions did not merit consideration As regards applicability of the provisions relating to unjust enrichment in cases of captive consumption. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Madras High Court judgment in Collector of Customs v. Indo Swiss Synthetic Ltd. [1992 (40) EEC 31] which held a view contrary to the Bombay High Court judgment in Solar P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a 100% EOU under Notification No. 1/95 was that the user industry follows the procedure contained in Chapter X of the Central Excise rules with the modification that a certificate in CT-3 form may be used by the industry in place of CT-2 form prescribed under the Rules. Appellants have admittedly not followed the said requirement. As regards applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment, ld. JDR referred to the latest decision of the Apex Court in Solar Pesticides case wherein it was held that the raw material used for captive consumption will be covered by the principle of unjust enrichment. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. While we are in agreement with the contentions of the appellants that no new grounds have been take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
