9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. While determining the value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty, the appellants did not include the value/cost of components. Thereafter proceedings were initiated and demand for differential duty, interest and penalty were confirmed and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1276/2005 dated 02.08.2005 held that the demand for differential duty was not sustainable and allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mes a deposit only and such deposit is to be returned when the issue is decided in their favour. He relies upon the decisions in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.)],Mothersons Sumi Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2007 (208) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.-Del.)] and CCE, Thane-II Vs. Mehta Pharmaceutical Indus. Ltd. [2005 (180) E.L.T. 26 (Tri.-Mumbai)] . Learned AR relies upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest has been collected, when it is not to be recovered that is to be refunded to the assessee. The Tribunal held that anywhere any amount is wrongly collected, the department cannot refuse refund on the ground that it is not provided under the statutory provisions of the refund. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the appellant's claim of the refund is maintainable. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he precedent decision cited by the learned counsel supports the case of the appellant, I consider that the appellant is eligible for the refund. The fact remains that whether unjust enrichment would be attracted and whether the appellants have crossed the threshold has not been examined or considered by both the lower authorities. Therefore I consider it appropriate that matter should be remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
