9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of unjust enrichment in respect of refunds claimed by him of an amount wrongly debited i.e. 8% or 10% value of the goods cleared from the factory premises. 4. Appellants were issued a Show Cause Notices demand of 8% or 10% value for the goods cleared from the factory without payment of the duty claiming exemption. Appellant paid the amount of duty took the matter in appeal to Commissioner (Appeals); who after following due process of law, held in favour of appellant as to there was no necessity for reversal any amount which is equivalent to 8% or 10% value of the duty. It is informed by the assesse that the said order and has been accepted by the Department. Consequent to such an order in favour, appellant filed an application for refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) in on similar facts is binding on the Single Member Bench. The ratio judgment of Tribunal as in Paragraph No. 8 is reproduced: 8. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (supra), the Tribunal observed that the amount paid in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR was for the adjustment of credit of inputs which went into the manufacture of exempted goods. This amount was collected towards the inadmissible credit availed by an assessee using common inputs and clearing also the exempted final product. As the appellants were eligible for the input credit related to job worked goods cleared to the principal manufacturer, they were not required to pay any amount in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2002. This posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As these amounts do not represent duty, the refund of the same need not be subjected to the procedure prescribe under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It is seen from the order of the original authority that the amount impugned had not been collected from the customers by the appellants. Therefore, the refund of the same would not involve unjust enrichment. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. It can be seen from the above reproduced ratio, the Tribunal has categorically held that the amounts debited @ 8% or 10% for the value of the goods under the Provisions of the Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 not being duty provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 will not apply. The said ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
