2018 (2) TMI 888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the respondent ORDER M/s Vithal Corporation Limited is an appeal against order-in-appeal no. PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-109-14-15 dated 21^st November 2014 of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) Pune rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 11,46,852 and Rs. 3,95,154 by sanctioning an amount of Rs. 13,12,107 which was, however, transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund as envisaged in section 11B of Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns pertaining to exempt manufacture. Accordingly, the refund application for the majors amounts involved in the dispute was filed by the appellant. The original authority, however, decided that levy of the said amount could not be faulted and rejected the refund claim. 3. The first appellate authority did not concur with the competence of the authorities below the Tribunal to revisit the obliga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....putes. Accordingly, the refund claim for Rs. 11,46,852 and Rs. 3,95,154 have been rightly rejected in the impugned order. 5. On the first of the claims, he held that the appellant had failed to discharge its obligation to establish that the amounts debited in the CENVAT credit account had not been passed on to the buyer. On the bar of unjust enrichment operating against that claim, Learned Coun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... collected from the purchasers of the waste products. That there was no scope for a further scrutiny has, according to her, been held in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Advani Oerlikon Limited v. Union of India [1991 (55) ELT 486 (Bom)] and by the Tribunal in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2008 (223) ELT 514 (Tri-Mumbai)] and Hindustan Lev....