9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 undervaluation was made against the appellant for the period from 1-3-2001 to 31-5-2001 on the ground that while computing the assessable value they have depressed the value of the fabrics. During the investigation, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- 'under protest' vide TR 6 Challan No. 6 dated 17-8-2001. The case was adjudicated by the lower adjudicating authority and the demand was dropped by him vide his order dt. 19-7-2002, consequent upon this the appellant filed a refund claim of the amount paid before the issuance of the show-cause notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 in support they have cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.). 5. The contention of the department is that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) held that the refund is based on the doctrine of equity. They have also cited Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus. reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, 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 paid during the pendency of an appeal before the appellate authority is considered as deposit, there is no reason why the amount deposited during investigation cannot be considered as deposit and accordingly held that the bar of unjust enrichment would not be applicable even to the amounts deposited during investigations. The Tribunal in the case of Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 216 (Tri.-Mumbai) held that the extra duty with interest paid later on at the instance of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
