9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Notification - insistence on payment of full rate of duty for the entire period isn’t correct - appellant is entitled for refund since the differential duty was paid after the clearance - no question of unjust enrichment – appeal allowed - E/987/2005 - 177/2008 - Dated:- 6-2-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri MS. Srinivasan, Advocate, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opt out of the same. Therefore the audit party insisted on them to pay the entire duty liability for the year, holding that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification No. 09/2002. Since the audit party insisted on payment, the appellants had paid the duty. The appellant's contention is that they are entitled for the benefit of Notification and hence they filed a refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full duty was discharged. He said that on this count, the appellants cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Notification for all the clearances made during the relevant period. But the Revenue had concluded that the payment of full rate of duty on certain clearances would mean violation of the conditions of the Notification and also it means that the appellants had opted out of the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of notification for the entire period. While we do not approve of the act of the appellants in paying higher rate of duty in spite of opting for the benefit of Notification No. 9/2002, we find that there is no provision for opting out of notification. There is no letter from the appellants stating that they had opted out of the Notification No. 9/2002. Therefore the aberration in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
