9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reversed the order of the original adjudicating authority which was in favour of the assesse, thus necessitating filing of the present appeals. In the other two appeals, being appeal No. C/ 180/2011 and C/ 181/2011, he has upheld the original adjudicating authorities order. 3. In the Revenue's appeal, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue appeal thus compelling the Revenue to file the further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The facts in all the cases are identical. The appellant is a manufacturer of various copper products for which purpose they import copper concentrates, to be used as raw material in the manufacture of the final products. As the cost of the copper concentrate is guided by the Lon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity rejected the refund claims which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. On going through the impugned orders, we find that there is no dispute about the factual aspects of the appellant importing the goods and paying duty on provisional basis, which was subsequently being finalized by the Revenue. 8. The only dispute relates to as to whether grant of such refund would result in unjust enrichment to the assessee or not. 9. The appellants have taken a categorical stand that their final product price is also LME based and has no relation to the cost of the raw materials including the customs duty paid by them. The said issue stands considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of rectified spirit used in the manufacture of copper. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed." 10. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Copper Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of CE, Jaipur - 2010 (261) ELT 943 (Tri. Del.) has dealt with an identical question and also examined the effect of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision jn the case of UOI Vs. Solar Pesticides Ltd.- 2000 (116) ELT 401 (S.C.), which lays down that unjust enrichment angle is applicable in case of captive consumption. However, the Tribunal observed that in as much as the final product price is being determined on LME prices, the unjust enrichment angle is not required to be examined. For better appreciation, we reproduce para-6 of the said order as under:- "6.&emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
