TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Shri P.N. Sen, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that they removed eight consignments of un-machined cast articles falling under Chapter 84 to their sister concern at Hyderabad after payment of duty of Rs. 41,732.26. However, subsequently on coming to know that no duty was payable by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of unjust enrichment he submits that their Hyderabad unit has written a letter which was produced before the authorities below that no duty element is being paid by them as they should not have paid the duty. This fact has also been admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals), but he is proceeding on the hypothesis that once debit note is raised by the assessees than irrespective of the fact that whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir raising a debit note to that effect by itself will not amount to appellants not having received the duty amount from their customers. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification if they would have followed the procedure of Chapter X. Referring to the decision relied upon by the ld. Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence". 6. We are not convinced with the above reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is admitted that the duty levy has not been received from the appellants from their sister unit at Hyderabad. Merely raising of demand by itself is not sufficient to prove that the duty element has been received by the appellants from their sister concern as has been observed by the Commissioner (Ap....