2018 (4) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the view that assessable value is to be determined in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, Hence the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,24,486/- during the course of investigation. The show cause notice was issued demanding excise duty of Rs. 2,24,468/-. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand in the adjudication of show cause notice vide Order dated 15-07-2002. Pursuance to Order-in Original dated 15-07-2002 appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 2,24,468/-. Appellant were issued show cause notice proposing rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment vide Order-in-Original dated 11-4-2003 Dye Commissioner rejected the refund claim. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 114-2003 appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of duty to the principal. She further submits that this is a case of refund of pre-deposit which was paid under protest, hence unjust enrichment is not applicable. She placed reliance on the following judgments:    (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-l Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd. [2015 (323) E.L.T. 431 (Born)] (b) Suvidhe Ltd vs. Union of india [1996 (82) E.L.T. 177(Bom)] (c) Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune Vs. Rocket Engg. Corporation Ltd. [2014 (306) E.L.T. 33 (Bom)] (d) Commissioner of Cus. Bangalore Vs. Motorola India Pvt Ltd. [2006 (206) E.L.T. 370 (Tri. Bang)] (e) Commissioner, Bangalore Vs. Motorola India Private Ltd [2008 (221) E.L.T. 489(Kar)] (f) Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Vs Mahalaxmi exports [2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nai-Il Vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. [2014(306) E.L.T. 26(Mad.)] 4. 'I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that only issue to be decided by me in the present case is that whether the refund claim of appellant is hit by unjust enrichment or otherwise. I find that duty was deposited during investigation with reference to removal of goods manufactured by appellant on job work basis the goods were undisputedly dutiable therefore payment made by the appellant is differential duty therefore it cannot be said that amount paid by the appellant is deposit and not the duty. The refund of duty paid in excess is subject to test of unjust enrichment as provided under Section 11B of Central Exc....