TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal has been filed by the Department against the Order-in- Appeal No. 206/2014 dated 25.08.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of structural items faling under Chapter 73 & 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They transferred some of the goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. After hearing both the sides we find that there is no dispute on the fact that refund was payable to the respondent on merit. However, the ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the refund is no payable on the ground of unjust enrichment. He submitted that even in the case of captive consumption the unjust enrichment will be applicable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise duty in the present case for clearance to the sister unit was paid on the basis of CAS-4 certificate. Upon consideration of the certificate, department has concluded that refund is eligible to the extent of Rs. 56,90,418/- at the level of Commissioner (A). It is further proved by the certificate of the Cost Accountant that the sister units, upon receipt of such goods, did not avail Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cenvat credit. In some cases, the report has been submitted to that effect. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant as per the undertaking filed by buying unit. Moreover, the Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to show that the buying unit has taken cenvat credit of excess duty paid by the appellant. The allegation of the Revenue is only based on presumptions and ass....