TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.7/2006(V-I) CH dt. 8/2/2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants imported raw petroleum coke and, inter alia, paid cess under Section 7 of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim on the ground that no cess was leviable on by-pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....263) ELT 34 (Guj.)]. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jammu Vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. [2011(267) ELT 653 (Tri. Del.)]. He further submits that they produced the Chartered Accountant's certificate in support of the claim that the burden of cess was not passed on to the consumers. 5. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) submits that in the present case the cess has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of coke. The duty has been levied on the taxable event of "import". Merely because the Customs duty was levied under the Coal Mines Act, the same cannot be treated as different from Customs duty. It is not in dispute that the Central Government can levy the Customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act or under any other law enacted by the Parliament. That being the case, the nature of levy has to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discharge satisfactorily. In view of the above, I do not find any valid reason to differ with the findings of the authorities below on the issue of unjust enrichment. 7.1. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court has been rendered in the facts of the said case and it has been clearly held that no question of law was involved in the said case and, therefore, it cannot be of any help to the appellan....