2017 (12) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed refund claim to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs and rejected remaining refund claim as hit by bar of unjust enrichment. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of hot re-rol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue has been taken up for decision. After due process of adjudication, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order sanctioning the refund and allowed the entire sanctioned amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of the provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the appeal before the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the Commissioner (A) has erred in holding that in respect of balance amount, bar of unjust enrichment is applicable. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has failed to take note of the factual position that demand of differential duty pertains to the period 9.2.1997 to March 2000, during which period excisable goods were cleared under production based capacity. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal recorded the finding of the fact that incidence of duty could not be transferred to buyers after date of clearance as duty had been paid on a subsequent date. In the appellant's case also, admittedly the duty has been paid on a subsequent date much after the clearance of the goods and therefore, the ratio of the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Besides this ju....