9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is arising out of impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 281-CE/MRT-II/2011 dated 30.06.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant were manufacturer of trimmed/untrimmed sheets, circles of Copper and Brass intended for u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.). The Original Authority through order dated 28.02.2011 held that the said amount of Excise Duty was paid by the appellant to satisfy the conditions of Notification No.67/1995 dated 16.03.1995 and, therefore, the said refund was not admissible. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in Order-in-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal No. 256/2009 is misplaced and the said order was on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog (supra) and the issue therein was whether the Brass and Copper are two different identifiable goods. 5. The learned AR has submitted that duty was paid for the sake of availment of Notification No. 67/1995 and, therefore, it cannot be refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices on which there is a rubber stamp affixed stating that the "the duty was not recovered from buyer". Therefore, in such a case the principle of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. As a result, we hold that the said refund was admissible to the appellant. In above terms appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
