TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agpur. As both the appeals deal with the same issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 2. The appellant M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. is a manufacturer of Iron & Steel products. They used to stock transfer of their goods to their depots and discharge excise duty liability on a provisional basis under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The provisional assessment used to be finalized on the basis of the sale price of the goods from the depot at the time of removal from the factory when it was known. For the quarter January-March, 2009, the appellant had cleared the goods on provisional basis. While calculating the differential duty for the purpose of finalization of assessment, they had taken the price of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 31-8-2010 sanctioned the refund to the appellant and inasmuch as the duty had been paid through Cenvat credit account, he directed that the appellant can take the credit of refund amount in their Cenvat credit account. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed by the Revenue and an appeal was filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the Assistant Commissioner should have first considered the clause of unjust enrichment by passing a fresh assessment order and thereafter, if applicable, the refund claim should have been considered and sanctioned and, therefore, the refund sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner was not in order. Vide the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim of the appellant was sent for verification to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent, who after verifying the records maintained by the assessee, confirmed that the appellant had paid excess duty amounting to Rs. 30,90,857/- for the period January, 2009 to March, 2009. The Superintendent further confirmed that unjust enrichment clause was not involved inasmuch the excess duty paid by the appellant has not been passed on to any other person in terms of Section 11B(2). It is based on the verification report, the refund was sanctioned to the appellant. Once the verification is done by the competent authority in respect of non-passing of duty incidence, the question of denying the same to the appellant on account of unjust enrichment woul....