9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,811.29. The payment of this additional amount of duty on the basis of the same CAS-4 Cost Certificate has been accepted by the department as no contrary fact is available on the record. In this regard, I feel that adjudicating authority can’t take two stands on a single cost certificate because the law does not permit such discrimination i.e. acceptance of a certificate for the purpose of recovery and rejection of the same certificate for the purpose of refund - said structural items have been used within the factory for erection of sheds etc. i.e. like capital goods - Following decision of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE [2003 (6) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 3913 of 2005 - EX[DB] - ORDER NO. FO/ 581 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide impugned order rejected the claim on the grounds including infirmities in the Cost Certificate and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 3. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was appealed against by the respondents before Commissioner (Appeals). While dealing with the first issue, he observed as under:- 5. The first issue is whether the appellant were required to pay duty in terms of Valuation Rules in respect of goods issued for captive use. Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules prescribes that where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be one hundred and fifteen percent upto 4.8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate adopted by the respondent for payment of duty. However, certain minor discrepancies are being pointed out by the Revenue at the time of grant of refund. Admittedly, the respondents are adopting the price of Rs.18,811.29 PMT for payment of duty on their final product. Same cost has to be adopted for the refund purpose also. As such, we fully agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said ground. 4. The second angle is unjust enrichment angle. Though Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue from all the angles but we would like to refer to only one paragraph from the impugned order which is as under:- 12.10. The appellant have cited the decision of CEGAT in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE [2003(157) ELT 123 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
