2009 (7) TMI 1057

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uded for determining the capacity of production, in terms of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of SBPC. Accordingly, assessee filed refund claims which were rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority. On an appeal Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee. Hence the present appeal. The relevant facts which Commissioner (Appeals) has considered are as under : "(a) that the assessee is working under compounded levy scheme where duty is paid based on capacity of production and with no relation to clearances. (b) that the manufacturing activity is carried out by the manufacturer on job charges basis without any breakup of excise duties. (c) that final goods are cleared by the manufacturer to the consignee under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is no question of recovering it from the customers; hence there is no unjust enrichment for the duty amounting to Rs. 1,22,000/- paid on gallery for the clearance of Dec.98 to Feb.99. In this regard I rely upon following judgments :- (1) Ambala Distt. Co-Op. Milk Produces Union Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex. Panchkula - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 492 (Tri. - Del.) (2) GSFC Ltd. v. CCE Vadodara - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Mumbai) Thus, in view of the above facts, I find that the unit is entitled to refund claim of Rs. 1,22,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,57,161/- is inadmissible as the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' is applicable for the clearance of March, 99 onwards." I find the reasoning very strange that bar of unjust enrichment ....