9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. ORDER The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The appellant are engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco chargeable to Central Excise duty. During the period of dispute - April, 2010 they were discharging their duty liability in terms of chewing tobacco and un-manufactured tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty paid in terms of Rule 9 the chewing tobacco and unmanufactured tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act and the same was sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31-5-2010 and was paid to them. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant, pleaded that the Compounded Levy Rules, 2010 are a complete code in itself and the provisions of unjust enrichment of Section 11B of Central Excise Act are not applicable, that refund in this case has been granted in terms of Rule 9 of the Compounded Levy Rules, which specifically provides for refund of the excess amount paid during a particular month by 20th day of the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 2.2 Shri N. Pathak, the learned Departmental Representative, opposed the appellant's plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit by reiterating the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and emphasised that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. - 2005 (181) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 533 and C.C.E., Mumbai-V v. Shree Ram Textile reported in 2006 (193) E.L.T. 485 has held that the provision of Section 11B are not applicable for refund of excess duty paid under compounded levy scheme. We, therefore, of prima facie view that in this case the refund claim is not hit by principle of unjust enrichment. The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
