2005 (10) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... brief facts are given. M/s. S. P. Industries and Chemicals (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. ESPI) are the manufacturers of oil of olay on job work basis for M/s. Procter and Gamble India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. PGIL). The appellants. PGIL filed a refund claim dated 7-5-1993 for a sum of Rs. 25,33,669.45, claimed to be the excess duty paid by ESPI, the job worker of the appellant on the product oil of olay from 2-4-1989 to 31-3-1990. The refund claim was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints v. UOI, reported in 1990 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) decided along with ESPI's own case. Later, the claim was revised to Rs. 24,33,502.63. The jurisdictional authority rejected the claim o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the M/s. Ujagar Prints case. Hence on merits, there is no dispute regarding the entitlement to refund. M/s. ESPI are the job workers of the appellants. They had actually cleared the goods on payment of duty to PGIL. Hence PGIL have borne the duty. Since there was no price variation, the burden of duty has not been passed on to the buyers. As regards time bar she referred to para 15 of the Order-in-Original dated August 1995 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs and referred to the observation that both the claim of ESPI and PGIL are treated as one for the purpose of this refund. Hence she argued that the refund claim of ESPI should be treated as the refund claim of the appellant for purposes of limitation under the Central Excise ....