2007 (3) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rastogi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  In this case, the adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim of Rs. 74,691/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and ordered it to be credited to consumer welfare fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espect of excess payment of duty. He further submits that the appellant produced the ledger account of the appellant company as well as the principals M/s. Padmavati Fabrics before the Commissioner (Appeals). He drew the attention of the Bench of the relevant pages of the ledger account. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the entire amount mentioned in the invoices have origi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not passed on to the customers. He also submits that as evident from the ledger account of M/s. Padmavati Fabrics that the appellant raised the bills to the principal and subsequently they have adjusted the excess amount of duty in their ledger, which has inflated the total credits. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is revealed that the appellant issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the credit entry of the appellants in respect of the excess amount of duty were not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal in the case of SPBL Limited (supra) held that the higher duty shown in the invoices and paid, but not collected from buyers as per evidence on record, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. In this case, the appellant produced the ledgers of the customers ....