9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processed man made fabric and filed a refund claim in pursuance to the Notification No. 25/2001- CE dated 11.6.2001 vide which deemed credit admissible on the specified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty instead of 8.8% as mentioned in the invoices. The contention of the appellant is that just to make correct entries in their accounts, the appellant issued credit notes. The appellant produced copies of the letters issued by their customers to the effect that they had only paid duty @ 8.8% The contention of the appellant is also that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals one filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is that in the case of S. Kumar's (supra), the Tribunal allowed the refund of the amount which was not collected by the manufacturer and rejected the refund claim where the amount was collected and subsequently credit notes were issued. 7. In this case, there is no dispute that rate of duty was reduced 8.8% to 8% in view of the increase of 5% rate in the deemed credit with effect from 11.6.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customers. The Larger Bench also allowed the refund claim of S. Kumar's Ltd. where it was proved that the amount of duty was not collected by them. In the present case also, the amount of duty regarding which refund instead of is not corrected by the supplier. Further, I find that the Tribunal vide Order dated 20.4.05 on the appeal filed by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
