2001 (8) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent firm. 2. It seems that during the period from June, 1984 to January, 1986, the respondents were restrained to take the Credit of Duty paid on various inputs namely, Cryolite, Fluorspar, Aluminium Fluoride etc. under the Notification No. 201/79 for payment of duty on the aluminium ingots i.e. the assessee's final product. During the said period, as the respondent could not take Credit of Duty paid on these inputs, they paid duty on the final product amounting to Rs. 7,55,595.76 (Rupees seven lakh fifty-five thousand five hundred ninety-five and paise seventy-six) from their P.L.A. The dispute for the admissibility of Credit under the said Notification travelled up to the Tribunal who vide its Order No. 399/88-B1, dated 8-9-88 he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the aluminium ingots. He also rejected the Refund Claim on the point of unjust enrichment. 4. On an appeal filed by the appellants against the above Order of the Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, and hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 5. We find that none of the authorities below have given a detailed factual background, which we have been able to find out from the Cross Objection filed by the respondents. It seems a simple case of giving consequential relief to the respondents as a result of rejecting the appeal of the Revenue by the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned here that the Revenue's appeal against the Order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on March....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions of Section 11B(2) are not attracted. It is seen that in the present case, had the authorities not disputed about the availability of credit in respect of the inputs in question and had they granted the necessary permission for availing the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 at an appropriate time, the respondents would have availed the exemption to the extent of duty paid on the inputs, instead of paying the duty on the aluminium ingots from their P.L.A. As such, it is seen that the present case is fully covered by the above Tribunal's decision. 7. An identical view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Orient Paper Mills reported in [1994 (73) E.L.T. 648 (T)]. It was observed that....