9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate Appearance for Revenue : Shri V.K. Singh, SDR Per Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning refund claim of Rs.99,11,410/-. The assessee are in appeals against the denial of refund claim on the ground of bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the facts of these cases. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections to the Revenue's appeals. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufactures of 'Drip Irrigation System' and 'Sprinkler Irrigation System' (DIS and SIS in short) which are sold to the farmers at a rate notified by the Ministry of Irrigation, Govt. of Maharashtra. The said system is exempted from Central Excise duty. A dispute arose bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that as DIS and SIS are exempted from duty and HDPE/LDPE pipes are classifiable under Chapter 84 and also exempted from duty, the amount of duty which they have paid under protest is refundable to them. He further submitted that the duty paid under protest was debited to their profit loss Account during the impugned period which have been shown as expenditure on the final product so fixed by the Ministry of Irrigation, Govt. of Maharashtra. Therefore, passing of duty on the customer does not arise because the price of end product was same before, during and after the period of dispute. Hence, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to their case. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otest. The only dispute is that the report of A.D. (COST) which was not shown to the assessee while passing the impugned order. Therefore, we find that not supplying the copy of report of A.D. (COST) to the assessee is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Flow Tech Power (supra) relied on by the learned Advocate was also not produced before the lower authorities while considering the refund claim. Therefore, we find that the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. In view of the above observations, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh after supplying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
