9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 308/CE/REV/CHD/07 dated 14-8-2007 by which the order of the original authority dated 1-5-06 sanctioning a refund of Rs. 1,28,765/- was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant is a manufacturer of woollen worsted yarn falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 51.07 of CETA, 1985. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority. 4. Learned Consultant for the appellants submits that though they paid duty at the time of clearance and that though they mentioned the duty element in the invoices, they have not received the duty portion till 1-9-2004 and that they have also issued credit notes on 6-9-2004 and therefore, the burden of duty has not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... durai v. N.V.K. Mohd. Sultan Rowther & Sons reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it has been held that unjust enrichment would not apply to a case of goods which have been held as not excisable. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buyers. It is not in dispute that the appellant paid duty at the time of clearance of the goods and issued invoices to their buyers indicating the duty element. Mere objection by the buyers that no duty was payable and that based on the said objection subsequently, the appellant issued credit note, in my considered opinion, cannot be held to be sufficient proof that the appellants have not passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
