2017 (12) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant Present Ms. Shreya Dahiya, 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 Tari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent. 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der no.56303-56304/2017 dated 21.08.2017. The Central 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 uni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertify the fact whether the buying unit has not taken 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 allegatio....