9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim of Rs. 74,691/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and ordered it to be credited to consumer welfare fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the job work on behalf of M/s. Padmavati Fabrics, Jodhpur (principal). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the ledger account of the appellant company as well as the principals M/s. Padmavati Fabrics before the Commissioner (Appeals). He drew the attention of the Bench of the relevant pages of the ledger account. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the entire amount mentioned in the invoices have originally been paid by the buyer are incorrect. He relied upon case laws as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant raised the bills to the principal and subsequently they have adjusted the excess amount of duty in their ledger, which has inflated the total credits. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is revealed that the appellant issued the credit notes in respect of excess amount of duty to the customers M/s. Padmavati Fabrics. They have also produced the ledger of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the case of SPBL Limited (supra) held that the higher duty shown in the invoices and paid, but not collected from buyers as per evidence on record, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. In this case, the appellant produced the ledgers of the customers show in that the excess amount was not collected by the appellant. So, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
