2018 (4) TMI 156

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 Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 11/09/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt with consequential relief by holding that Rule 6(4) of CCR disallows credit on capital goods only if it is used exclusively for exempted goods or services. It was held that credit cannot be disallowed just because the appellant have sold a portion of electricity generated to others. Pursuant to Tribunal order, the appellant has filed refund claim for Rs. 9,94,214/- debited earlier, The Original .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the credit reversed during the investigation. Refund was sanctioned but was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund based on the principles of unjust enrichment. He further submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant reversed the credit at the time of investigation, Therefore the refund cannot be rejected based on unjust enrichment. In support of this submission, he relied upon the follo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund, was not applicable". Learned consultant also cited the case of Lakshmi Gayatri Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Hyderabad [2017(358) ELT 462 (Tri. Hyd.)] wherein it was held that "assessee deposited the amount during investigation only with intention of reducing burden in case litigation goes against it. There is no specific instances raised showing amount being passed on to others. Mere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was upheld by the impugned order. Further I find that in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, it has been consistently held that any amount deposited during the investigation will be in the nature of pre-deposit made by the assessee and principle of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in such cases. Therefore by following the ratios of the above said decisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X