2016 (9) TMI 744

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Dharam Singh, the learned AR for the Revenue, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automotive cylinder head and were paying duty on the GTA services, so availed by them, on reverse charge basis. They were als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the same in consumer welfare fund on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The said order of the lower Authorities was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 5. The only ground required to be examined in the present appeal is as to whether the principle of unjust enrichment would be applicable to the refund, claimed and sanctioned. The appellants have strongly contested tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ort of the goods is, in any case refundable to them under Notification No. 40/2007-ST as amended, and in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, where the question of unjust enrichment would not arise. Though the said contention of the appellants stand reproduced by Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order but the same does not stand adverted to and there is no finding on the same. As such, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X