9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the appeals filed before him by the Revenue for recovery of refund of Rs. 14,63,047/- sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner for the period 20-11-86 to 13-11-89 of duty paid on HDPE tapes/strips captively consumed in the manufacture of the final products of HDPE sacks. 2. The matter was argued for the appellants before us by Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant and for the Revenue by Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR. 3. Ld. Counsel explaining the facts submitted that HDPE tapes/ strips were made out of HDPE/PP granules. They were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5406.90. Fabrics made therefrom were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5408. However, sacks made therefrom were classified under 6301. Prior to 20-11-1986, no duty was pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Packwell Ltd. (supra). In the meantime, the appellants filed a claim for refund of the duty paid under protest on tapes/strips consequent on the classification of sacks under Chapter 39 since they would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 217/86. The Asstt. Commissioner by order dt. 13-7-1995 allowed classification of the products under Chapter 39 and allowed the exemption under Notfn. No. 217/86. 4. The refund orders were challenged by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department s contention was that the remand order was only with regard to the classification of sacks and not tapes/strips. It was the Department's case that the Asstt. Commissioner could have passed an order only in respect of sacks, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the Tribunal in a number of cases like (a) 1998 (103) E.L.T. 108, (b) 1998 (104) E.L.T. 70 and (c) 1997 (94) E.L.T. 669. Besides, the appellants had been paying duty on HDPE tapes under protest and therefore their refund claim was not barred by limitation. The aforesaid refund was also not effected by the bar of unjust enrichment since the duty paid was on intermediate product consumed captively by the appellants in the manufacture of final products. The Bombay High Court judgment in Solar Pesticides v. U.O.I. [1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bom.)] had held that duty paid on the product consumed captively will not be subjected to the bar of unjust enrichment. 6. Ld. SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
