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

....er Ashok K. Arya M/s Miraj Products (P) Ltd. is in appeal against Order in Original No. 78/2010 dated 11.03.2011 whereunder the refund claim of excess duty paid under the provision of Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts are that: i) The Appellant is engaged in manufacture of chew....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... v) Thus by taking proportionate duty on 10 machines for the remaining 18 days w.e.f. from 13.4.2010 to 30.4.2010, the Appellant realized that they had paid excess amount of Rs. 24 lacs as duty. vi) The Appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 24 lacs on 4.5.2010 for the excess duty paid in advance. vii) The said refund claim was granted by the Assistant Commissioner after its verification by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the Revenue. 5 On the other hand, the ld Counsel for the Revenue vehemently submits that 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as recovered by the assessee from the customers. Thus, the said excess burden of duty was not passed on to the customers by the Appellant. The Appellant cites Tribunal's decision in case of Tirumala Bearings (P) Ltd. v/s CCE & C (Appeals), Visakhapatnam dated 2016(335) E.L.T. 145 (Tri. - Bang.) The Tribunal in the said case observes that: 5.... As such, we are of the view that the Chartered ....