2005 (12) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Revenue is aggrieved in the Order-in-Appeal No. 208/04-C.E., dated 21-9-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the review application filed by the Revenue sanctioning refund claim and also holding that there is no unjust enrichment to the assessee in the matter. The Commissioner has analysed the entire facts of the case including....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ory reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 649 (T). On this very point in that case also the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board had brought into existence certain items which were not goods and captively consumed. They had paid duty on those items like in the present case. The Tribunal held that the grant of refund by holding that the provisions of Section 11B is not applicable is a correct order, as the Rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Commissioner in the Order is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. The Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been clearly distinguished that the goods which were consumed in the factory were as a result of manufacture. While in the present case, there was no manufacture of the goods and the final products was also not sold. Therefore, the ....