2011 (8) TMI 774

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss Objections to the Revenue's appeals. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufactures of 'Drip Irrigation System' and 'Sprinkler Irrigation System' (DIS and SIS in short)  which are sold to the farmers  at a rate notified by the Ministry of Irrigation, Govt. of Maharashtra. The said system is exempted from Central Excise duty. A dispute arose between the assessees and the revenue with the regard to the classification of product like HDPE/LDPE pipes and tubes emerging as intermediate products during the course of manufacturing of DIS and SIS. The Revenue is of the view that the pipes and tubes are classifiable under Chapter 39 and chargeable to duty, therefore, the assessee is required to pay duty on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been shown as expenditure on the final product so fixed by the Ministry of Irrigation, Govt. of Maharashtra. Therefore, passing of duty on the customer does not arise because the price of end product was same before, during and after the period of dispute. Hence, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to their case. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the refund claim of Rs.31 lakhs (approx.) on the basis of report of Asst. Director (COST) which was not supplied to them.  Therefore, the report of Asst. Director (COST) cannot be relied upon.  He further submitted that their case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Flow Tech Power - 2005 (186) ELT 399 (Tri. C....