2015 (10) TMI 1805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u supplied components free of cost to the appellants. While determining the value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty, the appellants did not include the value/cost of components. Thereafter proceedings were initiated and demand for differential duty, interest and penalty were confirmed and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1276/2005 dated 02.08.2005 held that the demand for differen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deposited during the pendency of appeal becomes a deposit only and such deposit is to be returned when the issue is decided in their favour. He relies upon the decisions in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.)],Mothersons Sumi Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2007 (208) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.-Del.)] and CCE, Thane-II Vs. Mehta Pharmaceutical Indus. Ltd. [2005 (180) E.L.T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... though interest is not part of the duty but when the interest has been collected, when it is not to be recovered that is to be refunded to the assessee. The Tribunal held that anywhere any amount is wrongly collected, the department cannot refuse refund on the ground that it is not provided under the statutory provisions of the refund. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the appellant&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amount has to be considered as pre-deposit. Since the precedent decision cited by the learned counsel supports the case of the appellant, I consider that the appellant is eligible for the refund. The fact remains that whether unjust enrichment would be attracted and whether the appellants have crossed the threshold has not been examined or considered by both the lower authorities. Therefore I cons....