9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner(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 the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and are availing the facilities of CENVAT credit. The appellant had availed capital goods CENVAT credit on DG sets and Air Compressors of ₹ 9,94,214/-. These capital goods were shared and used by their tenant M/S, MHB Filters India located within their premises. On being pointed out, they had al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal order allowed the CENVAT credit to the appellant and on the basis of it, the appellant filed the refund application for 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 following decisions:- i. CCE, Bangalore vs, Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006(206) ELT 370 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2015(317) ELT 366 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. SKF Technologies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the matter came up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief. Thereafter the appellant filed the refund claim which was sanctioned but transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund by applying the principles of unjust enrichment and the same 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 decisions which is squarely applicable in the present case, I am of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
