9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 36,30,350/-, Rs. 43,61,900/- and Rs. 35,07,858/-. 3. The assessee-respondent is engaged in the manufacture of tooth paste and tooth powder falling under Chapter sub-heading 3306.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The products were being sold under two different brand names, namely PROMISE owned by M/s. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., and BABOOL owned by the assessee-respondent. The price lists were filed by the assessee-respondent in terms of erstwhile Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules before the authorities from time to time declaring the value of the said goods for the purpose of assessment. The Department contested the declared prices on the grounds that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : In their written submission dt. 22-1-2000, the assessee stated that he has submitted documents viz. Gate pass, invoices, statements RT 12 Return, RG23A Part II and PLA etc. from which it is abundantly clear that the excise duty has not been recovered from their customers. I do not agree with the contention of the assessee, as one of these documents indicate the actual recovery done by assessee from the customers. They have also submitted the certificate of their Chartered Accountant that excess central excise duty has not been recovered by them from their customers. However, in the para of certificate the Chartered Accountant has qualified it by stating that, it is on the basis of information and explanation given to them by the mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above, it was ideally a case which should have been remanded back for verifying the documents with reference to the plea of unjust enrichment. However, as I cannot remand the case back, records for one year that is April 93 to March 94 were called and verified as a test check and got cross verified with the records available with the appellants which they have also submitted before the adjudicator. 6. Ld. DR. reiterates the grounds of appeal and in particular ground Nos. 4 and 5 which read as follows :- 4. The Commissioner (A) has considered the CA s certificate to be an expert opinion for disallowing the clause of unjust enrichment. The Hon ble CEGAT, in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Eltech Enterprises reported in 1999 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) at page 11 of his order. It is a case of the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority after due application of mind and on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence before it. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not merely relied upon the certificates of Chartered Accountant. He also found that the certificates of Chartered Accountant has been found duly supported by the documents such as excise invoice, commercial invoice, extract of ledger, etc., produced by the assessee-respondent to show that the amount of duty of excise of which refund is claimed by the assessee-respondent is paid by them and incidence of such duty had not been passed on by them to any other person. 8. As far as limitation is conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
