9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied the same under chapter sub-heading 1904.10 and denied exemption benefit on payment of duty. Appellant challenged the same and got a favourable order from the CESTAT that confirmed classification under Chapter sub-heading 2108.99 under which products are exempted from duty. The said order attained finality after respondent-department unsuccessfully challenged the Tribunal's order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appellant sought for refund of excise duty paid on the aforesaid products 'under protest' for the period from 27.09.2006 to 31.10.2006. Refund was granted but directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Account and not to be paid to the appellant on the ground that it had failed to produce concrete evidences to show th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner, while reiterating the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), argued that after analysing the submissions made before the Commissioner (Appeals) the refund amount was shown as recoverable. Production of Chartered Accountant certificate etc. were found tobe insufficient proof concerning passing of incidence of dutyto the consumers for which he gave his finding as above, Placing reliance on the decision of SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE - [2006 (193) ELT 186 (Tri.LB)] he held that appellant failed in the test to qualify in the doctrine of unjust enrichment for which interference by the Tribunal in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is uncalled for. 5. We have heard from both sides at length and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty. Without taking into account the evidenciary value of the additional evidence like Chartered Accountant certificate, invoice copies, appellant's own declaration made before- hand, he just gave his opinion that those documents were not sufficient proof. The observation appears to be arbitrary as nothing is forthcoming from his order as to why he disbelieved those documentary evidence or rejected those as insufficient. In a judicial proceeding, order has to be a reasoned one based on judicial analysis where whim and caprice have got no role to play. It appears also improper to reject the Chartered Accountant certificate despite the fact that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Kumbhi Sakasi SSK Ltd. - [2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
