9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T) Shri Ravi Raghvan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby refund was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) held as under : "In view of the above facts, I hold that since Appellants have not produced any proof that goods were used for repair and maintenance only for the satisfaction of the authority as required under Notification No. 281/86 dated 24-4-86. Apart from the aforesaid findings, refund claims are not admissible to the Appellant as they failed to produce original duty paying documents as per Section 11B(1) of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntenance and repairs of the machinery installed. After passing an adjudication order, the other units where the parts manufactured by the E DD were received on payment of duty filed refund claims. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims. The appellant filed appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals on the ground that the conditions of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. were not complied with. The contention is that the appellants are the recipient of the goods cleared by F DD on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority allowed the exemption provided under Notification No. 281/86 to the manufacturing units i.e. E DD. No demand is raised till today against the manufacturing units on the ground that conditions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions of notifications are fulfilled. The Revenue also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) held that unjust enrichment is applicable to all refunds and assessee has to show that the amount for which refund is sought, has not passed on to customers. 4. We find that in the impugned order, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the present appellants failed to show that condition of Notification No. 281/86 were complied with. We find that E DD of the appellant were manufacturing the parts and claiming the benefit of the notification No. 281/86. Initially the benefit was denied and manufacturing unit cleared the goods on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
