2012 (1) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri N. Pathak, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The appellant are engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco chargeable to Central Excise duty. During the period of dispute - April, 2010 they were discharging their duty liability in terms of chewing tobacco and un-manufactured tob....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant applied for refund of excess duty paid in terms of Rule 9 the chewing tobacco and unmanufactured tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act and the same was sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31-5-2010 and was paid to them. This order of the Assistant C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Amit Jain, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the Compounded Levy Rules, 2010 are a complete code in itself and the provisions of unjust enrichment of Section 11B of Central Excise Act are not applicable, that refund in this case has been granted in terms of Rule 9 of the Compounded Levy Rules, which specifically provides for refund of the excess amount paid during a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 2.2 Shri N. Pathak, the learned Departmental Representative, opposed the appellant's plea for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit by reiterating the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and emphasised that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of....