2017 (5) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been rejected. 2. Brief facts are that: i) The Appellant is engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1995. ii) They are paying duty in advance on the 5th of each month under the provision of Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 (Compounded Levy Rules). iii) The Appellant pays duty in advance on the 5th of each month under Compound Levy Rules which is based on the number of packing machines installed and operating in the factory. iv) For the month of April 2010, the Central Excise duty was paid in advance by 5th. However, vide Notification No.19/2010-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the test of 'no unjust enrichment' has to be passed in every refund claim, which has not been passed as per the findings given by the Commissioner. Therefore, this refund amount cannot be sanctioned. 6. After going through the facts on the record and the submissions of both sides, it appears that this is a simple case of refund, where original authority namely Assistant Commissioner has got the facts verified from the Range Officer and thereafter sanctioned the refund claim in the normal course. However, the impugned order makes observations that the refund claim was wrongly granted by the original authority saying that the test of 'no unjust enrichment' was not passed. However, on record when the Appellant has produced their ledger acco....