9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven the finding that there is no manufacturing of molasses from 1.3.2005 to 30.4.2005. From this finding, I do not find any force in the submission of the Revenue that on such production of molasses the duty is payable as per the revised rate of ₹ 1000/- PMT instead of ₹ 500/- PMT which was prevailing prior to 1.3.2005 therefore, I agree with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner and hold that the respondent have paid excess duty on the molasses used captively. Unjust enrichment - Held that:- since the Commissioner (Appeals) given finding on the law point, no verification was done at any stage, on the facts that whether incidence of refund amount has been passed on to any other person or otherwise. As regard other Appeal No. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od from March 2005 to April 2005, the respondents cleared Alcohol from the factory which was manufactured from the molasses issued for the manufacture of rectified spirit. The department had recovered the duty of molasses contained in the Ethyl Alcohol cleared during March 2005 to April 2005 at the rate of ₹ 1000/- PMT. as the rate of duty on molasses was revised upwards to ₹ 1000/- PMT w.e.f.1.3.2005. The respondent paid differential duty of ₹ 11,81,851/- under protest and subsequently filed refund claim with the department on 26.7.2005 under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original No.03/Ref/2006 dt. 27.4.2006, against which, in an appeal by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Shri S.V. Nair Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that respondent had a practice to discharge excise duty on molasses at the time of clearance of the final products as at the time of manufacture of molasses, it cannot be ascertained that how much molasses is used in dutiable and non-dutiable goods. According to such practice, the duty liability arises on the basis of clearance of final product. Hence, the respondent had correctly discharged the duty on molasses, which cannot be said to be in excess. As regard unjust enrichment, the Ld. A.R. submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly found that due to captive consumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduction of molasses the duty is payable as per the revised rate of ₹ 1000/- PMT instead of ₹ 500/- PMT which was prevailing prior to 1.3.2005 therefore, I agree with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner. I hold that the respondent have paid excess duty on the molasses used captively. As regard unjust enrichment, I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the unjust enrichment is not applicable for the reason that the molasses was used captively, I do not agree with this findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that even in the case of captive consumption, the provisions of unjust enrichment is applicable. However, since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
