9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri L.R. Das, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. Revenue is in appeal against order in appeal No. 24-25/Kol- VII/2011 dated 9-2-2011 whereby Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order granting the refund. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent submitted a refund claim of Rs. 2,27,963/- for the deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commr. of C. Ex., Pune-I v. Poona Rolling Mills Ltd. reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 907 (Tri.-Mumbai) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 643 (Tri. - Mumbai) & Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & Customs reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.). 5. The contention of the respondent is that it is a case of refund of deposit and not of duty therefore the question of unjust enrichment is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decision in the case of Poona Rolling Mills Ltd. (supra), the case was remanded for examining as to whether the respondents passed on duty burden to their customers. In the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. (supra) by the Ld. A.R., while dealing with the case of rebate on excess production of sugar the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "all the authorities below have expressly recorded a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
