TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 in respect of duty paid veneers, falling under erstwhile Item 68 and thereafter under Chapter 44 of the Tariff, used in the manufacture of Plywood up to 28-2-1986. The Central Government issued Notification No. 225/86 dated 3-4-1986, which was amended by the Notification No. 338/86, dated 11-6-1986. The appellants were having huge quantity or duty paid veneers in stock and were eligible to take set off of duty paid on veneers, which was in stock on 11-6-1986. The veneers were received from 3-3-1986 to 5-6-1998. 3. The appellants filed refund claim for a sum of Rs. 1,08,675.19, which was rejected by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Hubli. The appellants filed appeal against the said order, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the set off of duty on specified goods of Chapters, 35, 39, 44, 48, 54, 59 and 68 was permissible. 6. The appellants submit that in another matter where the refund was claimed under identical circumstances from another factory of the appellants, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, sanctioned the refund of veneers lying in balance in the month of June 1986. 7. The Commissioner of Central Excise filed an EA2 application against the sanction of refund order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, on the ground that Notification No. 225/86 dated 3-4-1986 is an exemption Notification and hence the Asst. Commissioner ought not to have sanctioned the refund claim. 8. The Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant issues. 12. In the appellants' own case, the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore, has allowed the refund claim holding that the case is covered by Section 11B, sub-section 2, sub-clause (c), which provision does not cover the case of unjust enrichment where credit is taken on the inputs. This aspect is also covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Dura Syntex Ltd. [2003 (154) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.- Mumbai)] and M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna [2003 (155) E.L.T. 115 (Tri.- Kolkata). 13. The Delhi Tribunal by its Order No. 142 to 144/97 dated 3-2-1997, while deciding three cases of the appellants, has referred to the Notification No. 225/86, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-Rolling Mills, reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 533 (Tri. - LB). It is held by the Larger Bench that the adjudication order, having been passed contrary to the decision of the appellate authority, the same could not be allowed to stand. Therefore, the Commissioner was, fully justified in setting aside that order. Certainty about law and uniformity in its implementation are central in ensuring rule of law. Therein lies the necessity to follow precedent and subordination of adjudication authorities to their appellate authorities. 16. The appellants contention before the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Dharwad, and the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore, was that the price of the final product is fixed taking into consideration the r....