1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appellants granted duty refund for unreacted C4 Raffinate; product classification key.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Raffinate returned to their factory. The ... C4 Raffinate - Returned stream of C4 Raffinate (LPGs) Issues: Refund of duty paid on unreacted C4 Reffinate returned to the appellant's factory and used captively by them under Notification No. 28/89-C.E.Analysis:The case involved the appellants manufacturing different Petrochemicals and Chemicals, including C4 Raffinate supplied to M/s. Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd. The issue revolved around the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Reffinate returned to the appellants' factory and used captively by them. The denial of the refund was based on the argument that the returned stream of C4 Reffinate was different from the original one sent to M/s. GPL, as it was used in the manufacturing process of Polyisonutylene. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the returned C4 Raffinate was distinct from the initially sent product.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the classification of the returned stream of C4R. The Commissioner contended that the returned product was different without specifying a particular classification. However, based on a previous decision in IPCL & Anr. v. CCE, Vadodara, it was established that the returned stream of C4R should also be classified under Chapter Heading 2711.19, the same as the original product. Therefore, the Commissioner's argument that the returned product was different was rejected, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating they were entitled to a refund of duty paid on the returned C4R under relevant notifications, subject to the provisions of unjust enrichment as per Section 11B.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, granting the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Reffinate returned to the appellants' factory, as it was found to fall under the same classification as the original product, in accordance with the relevant notifications and legal provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
