TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corporation Limited is an appeal against order-in-appeal no. PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-109-14-15 dated 21st 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 Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The genesis of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly, 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 obligation to pay the prescribed amount and proceede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Counsel contends that such debits in the CENVAT credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 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 Lever Ltd [2008 (223) ELT 329 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 7. Notwi....