2006 (5) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ants to refund of Rs. 1,35,618/-. The lower authorities have rejected the refund. The impugned Order-in-Appeal has upheld the order of the lower authority. Hence the appellants have come before the Tribunal for relief. 3. In order to appreciate the issue involved, the brief facts of the case are narrated. The appellants manufactured various items falling under Chapter 73. During the period from 26-5-1997 to 27-3-1998, they cleared cross arms and earth pipes on payment of duty. Later they filed refund claim on the ground that the items are not liable to duty. The Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 29-4-99 rejected the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 2,25,381/- (on merits). The balance amount of Rs. 3,94,966/- was allowed on re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for an amount of Rs. 5,30,584/-. The above amount has a breakup as given below :- (a) Rs. 3,94,966/- credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund (b) Rs. 1,10,735/- duty payable on excisable products (claims) (c) Rs. 24,883/- inadmissible Modvat credit. The sum of (b) & (c) above comes to Rs. 1,35,618/- which is under dispute now. The Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 6-10-2003 sanctioned refund as per the proposal in the show cause notice and rejected the claim amounting to Rs. 1,35,618/-. Against the above order of the Deputy Commissioner the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order dated 14-1-2004. In this order, he has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The appellants are strongly aggrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... price did not make any provision for excise duty. In view of this, the appellant's claim that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in the present case merits acceptance. The appeals of the assessee allowed with consequential relief. The amount held to be refundable shall be refunded to the appellants, instead of depositing it in the Consumer Welfare Fund." (emphasis supplied) The above CEGAT's order was issued consequent to the Commissioner's (Appeals) order dated 18-7-2000. It is clear that the CEGAT has observed that there would not be any unjust enrichment in respect of the amount held to be refundable. The question arises held by whom? The obvious answer is that held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 18-7-2000....