9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate produced by the respondent of a Chartered Engineer indicating that the incidence of duty has not been passed on is not contested by the Revenue. Therefore, the refund claim is not to be rejected. - Decided against the revenue - Appeal No. C/115/05 - A/86506/16/CB - Dated:- 1-3-2016 - MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr (AR) For the Respondent : None ORDER PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN This appeal filed by Revenue is against the order-in-appeal No. 91/2004 (JNCH) dated 29.10.2004. 2. None appeared for the respondent despite notice. 3. Since the matter is of 2005, we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Welfare Fund. The learned D.R. relies upon the judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. - 2013 (288) ELT 203 (Bom.) to support his case that the capital goods used in the manufacturing of excisable goods, doctrine of unjust enrichment is attracted. 7. After considering the submissions made by both sides in detail, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of an amount paid under protest by the appellant for having denied the benefit of exemption Notification by the Customs authorities. The undisputed facts are that the respondent had imported 2 catalysts charges and claimed the benefit of Notification 66/94-Cus; they are eligible for the benefit of the said Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he denial of refund was inequitable as the importers were asked to pay duty which they did under protest when in fact they had a valid duty exemption certificate which facts have not been disputed by the appellant. Further as submitted by the importers the subsidy granted by the Central Government is irrespective of the duty exemption. Therefore, the appellants premise that the burden of manufacturing cost is borne by the Central Government, indirectly taxpayer of the country as observed by the Audit Department is unfounded. 7.1 It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority that he has considered the issue in correct perspective. It is undisputed that the fertilizers manufactured by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
