2014 (7) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se Registration No. AAACD2943EXM001, cleared Physician samples of Metapower in pack of 15's and 4's on payment of duty. The MRP of Metapower in pack of 15's and 4's were Rs. 55.82 and Rs. 14.86 respectively on pro-rata basis. The Appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 76,479/- on the ground that they have paid excess duty due to clerical mistake while taking assessable value of physician sample of Metapower in pack of 15's and 4's as Rs. 72/- and Rs. 19.20 per pack after taking abatement of 35.5% instead of Rs. 36/- and Rs. 9.60 respectively. The adjudicating authority concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the claim as the Metapower in pack of 15's and 4's were cleared from their depot to their buyers on MRP of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dustries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2011 (271) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.)]. 5. Ld. departmental representative on the other hand would submit that the First Appellate Authority was not convinced by the documents which were produced by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. He would reiterate the findings of the First Appellate Authority. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and at length and perused the records. 7. Undisputed facts are appellants are manufacturing and clearing the Pharmaceuticals goods i.e. Medicaments. It is undisputed that the duty liability on such medicaments is based upon the MRP of the said product less abatement, as per the notification. It is also see....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y taking assessable value Rs. 72/- instead of Rs. 36/- per pack of 15's and have paid duty taking assessable value Rs. 19.20 instead of Rs. 9.60/- for 4 capsules which resulted in excess payment of Rs. 76,479/- as detailed in Annexure - 'A' enclosed to the said refund claim." As against the reproduced factual position and the recording of the facts by the Adjudicating Authority, we find that the First Appellate Authority has summarily recorded that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence or the Adjudicating Authority has not given any proper findings. In our view the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, has hereinabove reproduced is not disputed by the department. If that be so, appellant herein has definitely ....