TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate for the Appellant Shri Arun Kumar, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. Brief facts of the case as put forth by the appellant are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of cement and cement clinker. Appellant clears cement in bulk in containers as well in 50Kgs bags. Rate of duty on cement was reduced from12% to 8% of RSP w.e.f 07-12-2008. However, due t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in Appeal dated 21-10-2010. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Shri J.S.Bhanumurthy made the following submissions. 2.1 The appellant is required to pay duty @ 8% of retail sale price. However, the appellant paid duty @ 12%. As duty is paid over and above the RSP on clearances to depots, question of recovery of duties would not arise. 2.2 Principles of unjust en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nrichment. The Original authority erroneously contends that the Chartered Accountant certificate is silent on the issue of unjust enrichment and the appellate authority has not examined the said evidence. 3. On behalf of the department, learned AR Shri Arun Kumar reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 5. Original....