2015 (10) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as reduced to 4 MT instead of 5 MT as declared earlier. But, the Commissioner of Central Excise provisionally determined the Annual Capacity of Production as 5 MT under Rule 96ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant discharged the duty liability on the basis of 5 MT and contested before the Tribunal. By Final order No. A/859 to 860/WZB/AHD/07 and S/494/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 24.4.2007, the Tribunal held that the production capacity during the relevant time was within 4 MT. The appellant filed refund claim on the basis of the order of the Tribunal. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim, but, it was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as provided under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her hand, Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shivagrico Implements Limited - 2006 (199) ELT 44 (Tri. LB) is directly on the issue and held that unjust-enrichment would be applicable in the case of Compound Levy Scheme. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Southern Ferro Limited vs. UOI - 2009 (245) ELT 517 (Tri. Chennai.). 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellant discharged the duty liability on the basis of ACP provisionally fixed by the Commissioner of Central Excise as 5 MT. It was subsequently re-determined by the ....