2008 (5) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the case on record, in brief, are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of different brands of Cigarettes falling under sub-headings 2403.11, 2303.12 and 2403.13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There was a dispute for payment of duty on wastage of paper emerging during the course of manufacture of Cigarettes, which was settled by the decision of the Tribunal by Final Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s had not shown the amount in Balance Sheet of relevant year in the Schedule of Loss and Advances to be recovered from the Department. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly followed the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (SC) which is not applicable herein. 3. After hearing the learned DR and on perusa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst them on a similar issue on the directions of the department and no incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers whether directly or indirectly. Hence the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. 4. I find that the Adjudicating Authority while sanctioning the refund claim, had taken into consideration the report of the jurisdictional Range Superintendent whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X