9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.S. Sejpal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant has filed this appeal against the denial of refund claim of Rs. 9,12,773/- by the lower authorities. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of special denatured spirit and availing CENVAT credit on their inputs. During the course of audit in the month of August, 2006 it was pointed out that the appellant has reversed the short duty of Rs. 9,01,143/- on the molasses consumed for the production of exempted products namely Rectified spirit and extra natural alcohol during the month of March 2005 and April 2005. It was also noted that the appellants have reversed the shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 On remand, the adjudicating authority after observing that "The quantity of 13.250 MT received in April, 2005 is not molasses but commercially known as Kala Gud which was received as per JMFC, Ahmednagar Order dtd. 28-1-2005 and accordingly shown in daily receipts and other receipts. Except receipts of Kala, Gud there is no other receipt in March and April, 2005. This fact is verified and confirmed by Range Supdt, in his report dated 14-11-2007" rejected the refund claim holding that "Excise Duty on molasses was enhanced w.e.f. 1-3-05, from Rs. 500 PMT to 1000 PMT and the same is used in the month of March April 05 and as such credit was required to be reversed at Rs. 1000 PMT only and there is no excess reversal." 3.2 He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 715 (Tri.-Del.) 4. On the other hand the learned DR submitted that in this case the authorities below have not considered the bar of unjust enrichment hence, the matter required to be remanded to the lower authorities for reconsideration. He further relied on the decision in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2004 (02) LCX0114 wherein the Hon'ble apex court held that the appellant had initially proceeded on the footing (of course mistakenly) that there was manufacture, they will not be entitled to claim any refund on the basis of this Judgment. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. With regard to invisible loss in the case of Siddheshwar SSK Ltd. - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 150 (Tri.- Mumbai) this Tribunal has held that invisible losses of inputs and final products during storage - losses being within the permissible norms of the State Excise authorities - impugned order accepting the losses upto 0.5% and ordering to reverse/pay the proportionate duty on losses in excess of 0.5% not interfered with. Accordingly, the appellant is not required to reverse CENVAT credit on the losses of input as evaporation losses. 9. With these observations, I find that the impugned order is to be set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in Court on 9-7-10) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
