2007 (10) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terms of Notification No. 75/86, as amended, subject to observations of Chapter X procedure. Accordingly, they applied for issuance of CT-2 certificate so as to obtain Naphtha at concessional rate of duty from M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. The said request of the appellant was denied by the Astt. Commissioner vide order dt. 8-1-97. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the benefit. Accordingly, the appellant was issued CT-2 certificate. 3. However, during the pendency of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), i.e. during the period 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99, in as much as the Revenue had rejected their request for issuance of CT-2 certificate, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....50 (S.C.). It has been further argued that the appellant had filed the appeal against the denial of issuance of CT-2 certificate, which amounted to protest against the department's action. Reliance has been placed upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.). We find that the appellant had applied for issuance of CT-2 certificate for procurement of Naphtha on concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 75/84. The said request was rejected by the Astt. Commissioner. As such, the appellant was bound to obtain Naphtha on full payment of duty. Further, they filed an appeal against such rejection order before the Commissioner (Appeals). As such, filing of appeal by the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot be held to be held barred by limitation. 5. As regards unjust enrichment angle, it is seen that the appellant  has produced on record a certificate dt 12-7-02 issued by their Chartered Accountant showing that the duty element does not stand recovered by them from their customers. Further, they have contended  that while submitting the cost data to FICC for the purpose of fixation of retail price of urea, they had initially included excise duty paid on Naphtha. However, their claim was rejected by FICC and the price of urea was fixed exclusive of excise duty paid on Naphtha. The above fact is evident from the certificate dt. 28-5-99, issued by Dy. Director of Fertilizers Industry Co-ordination Committee. The said certifi....