9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same and allowed the Revenue s appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. For better appreciation of facts, I reproduce para 5 6 of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. I find that the Respondent s unit is located in Kandla Special Economic Zone and they had cleared re-cycled agglomerates manufactured from plastic waste and scrap. Refund claim filed under Section 27(l)(b) was on the ground that they paid CVD as the exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE was not available due to the ITC policy provisions issued under ITC Notification No. 22(RE-2000)97/02 dated 25-8-2000 which excluded plastics agglomerates falling under Chapter 3915, irrespective of this raw materials used. This CVD was withdrawn by ITC Notification 32 (RE-2 000)97/02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification was withdrawn by Notice No. 32(RE-2000) dated 3-11-2000 it would eligible for exemption only after the goods are reclassified under CETA for claiming CVD exemption and only after that date and therefore the contention of the Respondent that CVD was not payable for the intervening period is not tenable. It is obvious that once the notification is withdrawn i.e. on 3-11-2000 as stated by the Respondent, the benefit would be applicable from date only and not retrospectively i.e. the date from which they paid duty i.e. from 25-8-2000 when the ITC Notification was in force. I, therefore, see ample merit in the contention of the Department in its appeal. Further, I find from the Respondent has perfunctorily contended that the incide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CC (Prev.) reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). 5. The refund claim also stands rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they have not been able to prove that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customers. The appellant have contended that inasmuch as duty was paid by mistake, the same cannot be retained by the Revenue and what was paid by them under protest was not in the form of duty, but mere a deposit. I find that it is settled law that each and every case of refund has to pass the test of unjust enrichment. There is nothing in the written submission filed by the appellant to even remotely suggest that the duty so deposited by them has not been passed on to their customers. 6. In view of the for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
