9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processed Man Made Fabric and filed a refund claim in pursuance to the Notification No. 25/2001-CE, dated 11-6-2001 vide which deemed credit admissible on the specified inputs used in the manufacture of processed man made fabric has been increased from 45% to 50%. As a result of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect entries in their accounts, the appellant issued credit notes. The appellant produced copies of the letters issued by their customers to the effect that they had only paid duty @ 8.8%. The contention of the appellant is also that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals one filed by the appellant and the other of M/s. A.K. Spintex Ltd. On appeal filed by M/s. A.K. Spintex Ltd. the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected by the manufacturer and rejected the refund claim where the amount was collected and subsequently credit notes were issued. 7. In this case, there is no dispute that rate of duty was reduced from 8.8% to 8% in view of the increase of 5% rate in the deemed credit with effect from 11-6-2001. The dispute is in respect of three days only when appellant continue to show in the invoices duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of S. Kumar's Ltd. where it was proved that the amount of duty was not collected by them. In the present case also, the amount of duty regarding which refund instead of is not corrected by the supplier. Further, I find that the Tribunal vide order dated 20-4-05 on the appeal filed by the A.K. Spintex Ltd. against the same impugned order held that bar of unjust enrichment does not apply on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
