9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hok Jindal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri N.A. Sayyad, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri J.F. Pochkhanwalla, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16-6-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Crompton Greaves, Nashik (the respondents herein) are registered with the Central Excise Department for the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85. They had paid the duty amounting to Rs. 11,87,875.62 at the investigation stage of the case booked against them, being the duty alleged to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-89 without protest. Therefore, the claim filed by thorn on 11-11-1998 is time barred. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who had set aside the OIO and allowed the appeal with consequential relief vide the impugned OIA on the grounds that (i) the penalty and duty paid by the respondents are not in dispute, and (ii) the OIO was passed on the different ground viz. ground of limitation, which was not incorporated in the show cause notice. 4. The following are the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue :- (i) the respondents had not paid the amount under protest during investigation stage i.e. on 12-12-1988, 28-1-1989, 11-2-1989 12-2-1989 vide entries 1261, 1596, 1730 1731 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Spirit Ltd. v. Commissioner or Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 260 (Tri-Mumbai) in which relying upon the Hon ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner [2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.)], the Tribunal held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to all cases of refund irrespective of whether the amount to be refunded is duty or otherwise. Although the respondents have referred to the Order-in-Original No. 18/2004, dated 16-3-2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in their case in which he has held, based on the Chartered Accountant s Certificate dated 17-5-1999, that the amount of Rs. 14,19,208/- has not been passed on to their customers yet we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
