2017 (3) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is job worker of M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. and after carrying out the activity, they cleared goods to M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited paying excess duties on their clearance. Later on, the buyer of the goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im refund as bar of unjust enrichment has been passed. It is also submitted that the department itself verified that M/s Swaraj Mazda ltd. has taken cenvat credit on the amount of refund claim by the appellant or not. It has been certified that M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. is not a registered dealer with the Central Excise Department and have not taken the credit. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee is a 100 per cent Export oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing cotton yarn. The respondent filed an application for refund of an amount of Rs. 2,00,827/- on 14.08.2002 on the ground that it had paid excess excise duty at the rate of 18.11 per cent instead of 9.20 per cent. The Assessee initially passed on the duty incidence to its customers. Later the Assessee returned the excess duty amount t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the documents produced. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the Assessee and the said order was confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2005. The said order of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was further confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Customs Excise Appeal No. 100 of 2008 filed by ....