9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue based on market price charged. Revenue raised the objection and pointed out that excisable goods were removed on the basis of 110% of the cost of manufacture in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, accordingly, the appellant paid the duty as per CAS-4 certificate. Due to variation in prices at the end of the year appellant found that in some cases they have paid excess duty as per CAS-4 and in some cases they have paid less duty. After adjustment of the duty payable by the appellant and excess duty paid by the appellant, the appellant filed refund claim of excess duty paid during the said period and in support of their refund claim the appellant produced certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant showing that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdictional Assistant Commissioner on 20.06.2005 itself for a permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the financial year 2005-06. The said request was rejected. We note that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) finds such request and subsequent rejection is of no consequence to decide the appellant's liability for duty. We find the reasoning given by the lower authority as devoid of merit. In the present case, the appellant was not allowed to have provisional assessment and the department now proceeds to demand of duty selectively for periods within the same financial year wherever the value is less than the Rule 8 value and refused adjustment within the same financial year when the value is determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not taken cenvat credit. In some cases, the report has been submitted to that effect. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant as per the undertaking filed by buying unit. Moreover, the Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to show that the buying unit has taken cenvat credit of excess duty paid by the appellant. The allegation of the Revenue is only based on presumptions and assumptions which is not sustainable in law. As the appellant has been able to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment. Therefore, appellant is entitled to refund claim in question. Issue No. (ii) I find that the appellant has approached for a permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
