9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that their activity amounts to manufacture, the dispute could not have arisen as on today. In this context of that it cannot be said that the appellants are required to pay duty twice. As the appellants have claimed refund of excess duty paid on Ethanol portion at the time of clearance of EBMS or they are entitled for CENVAT credit at the time of procurement of Ethanol, the consequences will be the same as they are entitled to get the refund of excess duty borne by them. As the facts of double payment of duty on Ethanol is not in dispute at any stage and the dispute has been arisen on the wrong understanding of the Revenue while granting them permission for blending the Ethanol with MS. Therefore, following the principles of natural justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anol with Motor Sprit amounts to manufacture. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for refund of the duty paid at the time of clearance of EBMS on the content of Ethanol. It was further observed by the lower authorities that the appellants have failed to pass unjust enrichment therefore, refund claim is not admissible. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants are before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. M/s. Padmavati Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that before commencing the activity of blending, the appellants have sought permission for blending of Ethanol with motor sprit from the department and vide their letter dated 21.11.2002, it was informed to them that their activity does not amounts to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the letter issued by the Range Superintendent has not been challenged by the appellants therefore they are not entitled for refund claim in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue - 2004 (64) RLT 321 (SC). He further submits that in the light of Notification 62/2002 dated 31.12.2002, their activity amounts to manufacture and their product has become exempt from duty from the said date therefore, if they had paid duty on the inputs they are not entitled for credit of the same. In these circumstances, they are not entitled for refund claim. The learned A.R. further submits that the appellants have not challenged the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting their refund claim and challenged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for duty paid on Ethanol. 7.1 With regard to the contention of the learned A.R. that the appellants have accepted the findings of the adjudicating authority and the same has not been challenged, we have gone through the records and on perusal of the records we find that the appellants have challenged the findings of the adjudicating authority before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the same has not been appreciated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. 7.2 Now we come to the issue of unjust enrichment, the issue came before this Tribunal in the appellants own case (supra) wherein in para 9 of the said order the Tribunal has observed as under:- 9. The next issue is appeal filed by the appellants relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
