2018 (1) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Capters 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Schedule). During the course of investigation about non-payment of an amount equal to 10%/5%/6% on the bagasse sold after May'08, the appellants had paid an amount of Rs. 9,04,979/-(eq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t filed appeal before Commissioner(Appeals), who upheld the order. On further appeals, Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities vide its final order dated 31.07.2012 and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. 3. As a consequence the appellant filed refunds of duty paid by them, which stands rejected by the authorities below on the ground of unjust enrichment. 4. The app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. They have further submitted that the amount payable under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 is not a C.Ex., duty and the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable only to the refund of wrongly paid as C.Ex. duty and since admittedly the amount paid by them is not at all a duty and hence applying presumption of bar of unjust enrichment is totally unjust and arbitrary. The appellants rely upon the Tribunal's d....