9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Appellant Shri V.K. Singh, Additional Commissioner (A.R) Per : Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by M/s. CEAT Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the order-in-appeal No. BPS(314)6/2003 dated 9th October 2003. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s.South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. SATPL) were engaged in the manufacture of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985,. W.E.F.1.3.1997, the goods became chargeable to ad valorem rate of duty. Since M/s. SATPL was a joint venture between the CEAT i.e. the appellant on one side and M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. Goodyear, U.S.A. from the other side, the price charged by M/s. SATPL from the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of excess duty amounting to Rs.1,07,52,155/- collected from them during the period under reference. The Dy. Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment vide his order-in-original dt. 29th November 2002. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who vide his impugned order rejected the appeal and the appellants are before us in this appeal. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim only on the ground of unjust enrichment which is not applicable in this case. For this purpose Commissioner has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) in support of his contention. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the refund has rightly been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. He submitted that original authority while passing the order has held that the appellant has not given any separate accounting treatment to the excess duty paid to M/s. SATPL and the correct duty payable to M/s. SATPL. In fact the entire duty paid to M/s. SATPL by the appellant has been given a common treatment and has been shown as an expenditure in the books of account of the appellant. It means that the entire duty element including the excise duty paid by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in case the of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd. In the cited case the letters and certificate issued by the Railways indicated that no amount was provided towards excise duty while pricing was worked out and in one letter it was specifically mentioned excise duty Nil which would suggest that price fixed under the contract did not provide for an element of Central Excise duty. Also department has taken a plea that railway administration colluded with the assessee in issuing letters and certificate which was rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, appellant themselves contended that Supreme Court decision in case of Mafatlal Industries was wrongly relied by lower authority as Mafatlal Industries were the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
