9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund allowed. - E/3678/2003-Mum. - A/217/2011-WZB/C-IV(SMB), - Dated:- 9-6-2011 - Shri S.K. Gaule, J. Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides 2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal No. PD/179 to 180/M-1V/2003 dt. 29-8-2003 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the lower adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/-. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an independent textile processor and is doing the processing on job work basis for various customers for the excisable goods falling under Chapters 52, 54 55 of CETA 1985. A case of u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their contention they have cited Board s circular wherein it has been clarified that in case of refund of pre-deposit of a simple letter from person who has made such pre-deposit is sufficient for the return of the said amount. They have also cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (206) E.L.T. 370 (Tri.-Bang.) and Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore v. Motorola India Private Ltd. reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 489 (Kar.), Rajiv Plastics Industries v. Commr of C. Ex. Cus., Vapi reported in 2009 (245) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.-Ahmd.). The contention of the appellant is that the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply in the case of deposit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and before issuance of show-cause notice. The lower adjudicating authority while deciding the case set aside the demand. The order was not challenged by the department at any stage. Nor department could produce any evidence that the amount deposited by the appellant was appropriated at any stage, therefore, the same cannot be treated as duty. The Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Plastics Industries (supra) held that order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 23-2-2006 stands accepted by the Revenue and the refund of deposit made by the appellant, as a consequent of above order, is required to be sanctioned. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. held that when the duty pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
