9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants are manufacturers of hot re-rolled products. During the material period, they were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. On the basis of the furnace parameters declared by them, the jurisdictional Commissioner determined their Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) as 6336.546 MTs treating the furnace a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the original authority and the first appellate authority have rejected this claim as barred by unjust enrichment. The appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the lower authorities. 2. Heard both sides. It is submitted by ld. Consultant for the appellants that the bar of unjust enrichment created under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was not applicable to excise duty paid under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturers working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act as to other manufacturers working under Section 3 of the Act. She is supported by the following decisions of the Tribunal : (i) K.B. Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-I - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 345 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Jalan Steel Works (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad -2004 (178) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by such manufacturers. It is true that the invoices issued by the appellants did not indicate any Central Excise duty having been recovered from their buyers. These invoices carried the remark full and final discharge of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) . But this by itself would not help the appellants rebut the presumption under Section 12B as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
