TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original No. ANK-I/TK/920/R/08-09 dated 16.12.2008. 2. The fact of the case is that during the process of manufacture of intermediate product namely Notional Resin Contents of Wire Enamels is formed and the same was consumed captively by the appellant, without payment of duty. After pointing out by the Department, the appellant started paying duty on the said product Under Protest. The issue was decided in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal. Subsequently the appellant filed a refund claim on 29.09.1998 which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 26.05.1998. The appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to any other person. Being aggrieved with the de novo adjudication order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the impugned order therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Mihir Deshmukh, learned Counsel along with Ms. Ami Parekh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the duty was paid on the intermediate product Under Protest. However the duty paid was not taken into account of cost of the final products. This gets proved with the fact that price of the final product before payment of duty and after payment of duty remained the same, therefore duty paid on the intermediate product is not part and parcel of the sale value of the finished goods. Once the duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being a very old matter, the Chartered Accountant certificate also does not show the correct position, hence the Chartered Accountant certificate is vague and the same was rightly rejected by the lower authorities. He submits that the main ground of the appellant is that the price of the final product before and after payment of duty remained same. This is not sufficient evidence to show that the evidence of duty has not been passed an, thus the appellant have not produced any proper evidence. Therefore the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority have rightly held that the refund is hit by unjust enrichment. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. From the fact of the case it appears that the ap....