AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 35,94,234/- along with interest @12% p.a. In the second Order-in-Appeal he has sanctioned an amount of Rs. 9,02,400/- along with interest @ 12% pa. The revenue has filed appeals with a request to set aside both the orders -in- appeal and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit. 3. Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue and Sri. B.V. Kumar, the learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the manufacturer of Asbestos from Rock. Consequent to the demand from the department the appellant cleared goods during the period from 1988-89 to 1993-94 on payment of duty. The issue of excisability of Asbestos fibre was agitated b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the refund amount of Rs. 22,75,046/- sanctioned earlier by DC, vide his order 12/2002 dated 15-4-2002. (ii) Order-in-Original dated 34/2002 dated 24-10-2002 rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 14,86,706/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on account of unjust enrichment. The respondent appealed against the above order. The Commissioner (Appeals), passed the second impugned Order in appeal No. 38/2004, dated 24-2-2004. In the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals), ordered a refund of Rs. 9,02,400/-along with interest @ 12% p.a. out of the total refund claim of Rs. 14,86,7076/-. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has scrutinized carefully the available records and granted relief to the respondents. The only iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viz., J.J. Spun Pipe Industries, Nizamabad, have placed three Purchase Orders wherein the Demand Drafts enclosed was equal to the price including excise duty and sales Tax. iv. The Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered to pay interest @ 12%. However, in terms of the provisions of Section 11BB (introduced w.e.f. 26-05-1995), interest is payable from the date of receipt of the refund application till the date of payment. The applicability is to be restricted to the above extent only without prejudice to the above contentions. v. Further, different interest rates have been specified during different periods, the present interest rate being @ 6% p.a. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Respondent had submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 15-3-1997 certifying that they had not collected Central Excise duty from their purchasers. VI. In respect of other 13 buyers, respondents had produced copies of invoices before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the invoices an endorsement was made to the effect that Central Excise duty was not charged/demanded/collected, as Writ Petition was filed by them in the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Under these circumstances, the respondents are rightly entitled for refund of Rs. 11,74,133/- pertaining to the supplies of asbestos to 13 other buyers. As regards the interest @ 12% the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9500 95000 14250 7724 116974 88-89/117/3-7-1988 10 9700 97000 15277.50 7938.02 120215.52 Total 43327.50 9. Further, Sri L Narasimhamurthy referred to various paragraphs of the Mafatlal decision to show that, even if the commodity is not excisable, if the respondents had collected duty from the buyers they cannot claim refund from the department as a matter of right. The burden is on them on to show that the amount paid to the department has not been collected from the buyers, even if it is not excisable. The learned advocate conceded that point and said that as far as the respondents are concerned they had amply demonstrated that the amount paid to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Affidavit dated 30-4-2001 that they have exclusively borne the entire duty burden in respect of Asbestos Fibre supplies made to various buyers and they (the appellants) have not charged/collected any Central Excise duty from the buyers. They have also undertaken to refund the amount in case the department investigates and finds out that the appellants have passed on the duty burden to the buyers. 12. Further the Commissioner has given a detailed finding in both the orders and allowed the refund due to the respondents. As per the learned SDR, an amount to the tune of Rs. 43,327.50, is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. In our view, the amount allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) should be reduced to this extent. As regards interes....