TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, inter alia, remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority observing as follows: - "As regards the product "Gauge" it is observed that this product is a finished product in all respect and it is being used as measuring tool therefore it is classifiable under chapter sub-heading 9031.00 and chargeable to Central Excise duty. The applicability of Notification No. 217/86 dated 2.4.1986, I agree that the ratio of the judgement in the case of Telco Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - 1994 (70) ELT 75 (Tri) which is applicable in the instant case. However, the eligibility of this notification is depend upon other factors such as the final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. S. Chandrashekhar, Manager (Excise) of the appellant argued that the first remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was done specifically observing that the ratio of the judgment in the case of TELCO Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - 1994 (70) ELT 75 (Tri) is applicable to the present case. He argued that this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged before the Tribunal and therefore, subsequent decision of Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner cannot go beyond the said observations of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned AR argued that the gauges are not merely measuring tool but are used in the process of production and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in case of TELCO (supra) would not be applicable. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the exclusion clause, all inputs would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption. That the goods are, in this case, covered by the description of "inputs" in the Table to the Notification, is, as already noted, undisputed. The only question, therefore, is as to the scope of the exclusion under the Explanation. The phrase in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products is common to both the exemption and the exclusion. All the decisions cited by the appellant relate to the meaning of this phrase. Reference to them was unnecessary since there is no dispute that the items in question are inputs and covered by this common phrase. The difference between the exemption and the exclusion lies in the phrases "used for producing or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claim was however rejected as the appellant failed to produce any vouchers. Debit/credit note etc. to establish that there was no unjust enrichment. He also held that merely C.A. Certificate is not sufficient to establish that there was no unjust enrichment. 6. The Manager (Excise) of the appellant argued that the C.A. certificate is sufficient to establish that there was no unjust enrichment. He produced a copy of the C.A. certificate. He also asserted that in case of duty payment under protest, the doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot be invoked as has been held in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad- 2002 (143) ELT 17 (SC). 7. Learned....