9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... setting up a Gas Power Plant. There was some dispute with regard to the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 36/96-Cus. dated 23-7-1996. Ultimately the issue was settled by the order of CEGAT, Chennai dated 10-8-2000. Consequent to the CEGAT order, the appellant was entitled to refund of Rs. 27,96,38,449/- towards the excess duty paid. The appellants filed a refund claim. But the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice for adjustment of Rs. 1,95,00,272/- towards the duty liability of the appellants on account of addition of supervision charges to assessable value. The balance amount was proposed to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The lower authority confirmed the proposal holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, New Delhi [2001 (137) E.L.T. 527 (Tri.-Del.)] (f) Oriental Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2001 (127) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.-Del.)] (g) CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] (h) CCE, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. [2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (i) CCE, Calicut v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2005 (191) E.L.T. 187 (Tri.-Bang.)] (j) Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE C [2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.)] (k) SRF Ltd. v. CC, Chennai [2006 (193) E.L.T. 186 (Tri.-LB.)] (l) CC, Bangalore v. Elgithread (India) Ltd. [2006 (199) E.L.T. 486 (Tri. - Bang.)] (m) CC, Ahmedabad v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [2006 (199) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.- Mumbai)] (ii) O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinized for unjust enrichment. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been upheld by the Apex Court. In terms of the case law relied on in the impugned order even in respect of finalisation of provisional assessment, the unjust aspect has to be examined. We would also like to reproduce our findings in the Godvari Fertilizers Chemicals Ltd. 5. As regards the unjust enrichment the Commissioner (Appeals), relying on decisions taken in the context of the Central Excise Rules, has held that in respect of refunds arising consequent to finalisation of provisions assessment, there is no question of unj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the respondents are entitled for the refund. The Respondents shall produce all the necessary documentary evidences within two months which are on record to satisfy the original authority regarding their claim of not passing on the burden of duty paid to others. In any case, the Adjudicating authority shall decide the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A contrary view has been taken by the Mumbai Bench Tribunal in the case of CC, Ahmedabad v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [2006 (199) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Mum.)]. The Tribunal (Single Member) has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
