2016 (9) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ingh, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant    : Mr. Sameer Agarwal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Grover, D.R. ORDER Appeal has been filed against Order in Appeal dated 21.08.2007 in terms of which the Commissioner (Appeals) (while deciding the assessee's appeal against Order- in- Original dated 18.05.2007 rejecting the appellants refund claim of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at 10% / 15% of the cost of production was not required to be added as the goods were not sold to any other person, and therefore, the duty paid  on  this  component  was  refundable.  Further  it is not a case of unjust enrichment as the goods were not sold.  Also as the duty was paid under protest, question of time-bar does not arise. 4.  In its me....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing 110% or 115% of the cost of production.  Thus, the issue involved in the subject refund claim has already attained finality in January, 2004 and that filing of such refund claim is not proper, bad in law and liable for rejection. (ii)  The principle of unjust enrichment is duly invocable in this case as the appellant passed on the burden to its customers as the duty was factored w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the submissions of the appellant that it had already paid differential duty before the issuance of the show cause notice, did not have any intention to evade payment of duty, and therefore, its only request was to set aside the  penalty.  The Commissioner (Appeals) took note of the appellant's submissions and noting that the appellant did not contest valuation, started payment of duty ....