9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal No.27/2005 dated 29-7-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Hyderabad. 2. The appellant cleared Dot Matrix and Line Matrix from the factory to the depots. At the time of clearance from the factory duty was paid at the stock transfer price. The assessment was provisional. On a quarterly basis, the appellants calculated the correct duly liability based on n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003 to March 2003 under the provisions of Section 11B(d) of Central Excise Act, 2001 read with Section 11D. The lower authority confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notices. The Commissioner (A) upheld the orders of the lower authority and passed the impugned order. The appellants are strongly challenging the impugned order. 3. We have heard both the parties. From the facts of the case, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the buyers at lesser value, lesser duty burden is passed on to them. Thus, the differential duty is borne by the appellant. Hence, unjust enrichment will not arise. 3.1 There is substance in the contention of the appellant that refund arising consequent to the finalization of provisional assessments cannot be recovered by issue of a Show Cause Notice under Section 11A without challenging the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 386 (T) (iv) La Opala RG Ltd. v. CCE, JSR -2002 (149) E.L.T. 164 (T) 3.3 In view of the above observations, it is clear that (i) the appellants are entitled for the refund (ii) the bar of unjust enrichment would not be applicable (iii) the Show Cause Notice issued without challenging the refund order for recovery of erroneous refund is not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
