9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In some cases, the appellant paid excess duty and there was short payment of duty of the amount of CAS-4. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Devi Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 429 - CESTAT CHENNAI) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2004 (7) TMI 145 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] held that as there was no sale of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das Common issue involved in these appeals and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Moulds classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants transferred Mould to their sister concern located at Daman for captive use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 16,55,983.00 on 11.08.2006. A Show Cause Notice dated 18.08.2006, was issued to appropriate the amount of duty paid by them alongwith interest and to imposed penalty. Another Show Cause Notice dated 31.10.2006 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim on the good of unjust enrichment. The Adjudicating Authority, confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and by another order, rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the said amount cannot be adjusted against the present demand. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Ferrous Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum 2005 (186) E.L.T. 105 (Tri. - Del.). He submits that the Adjudicating Authority rightly denied the refund claim on the ground of principles of unjust enrichment. 5. After hearing both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
