2018 (6) TMI 855

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of Distributed Control Panel (DCS),, Emergency Shut Down System (ESDS), Terminal Automation System (TAS) etc. They supplied goods to M/s. Reliance Petro Chemicals, and opted for provisional assessment since cost of some of the goods would be known ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. Reliance Petrochemicals to whom the goods were supplied has taken MODVAT credit of the excess duty and therefore respondent is not eligible for refund as it would tantamount to unjust enrichment. 1.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein held that the adjudicating authority erred in confirming the demand of differential duty relating to design and engineering charge. On the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sold the goods have availed MODVAT credit of the duty which is claimed as refund by the respondent. Thus, it is clear that the duty has been passed on to another and therefore is hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. 3. The ld. counsel Shri T.R. Ramesh appearing for the respondent submitted that the duty for which the clearances were made for the period 2.6.1998 to 28.2.1999 was sought a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gineering charges, he submitted that the said demand was already set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 104/2007 dated 30.11.2007 and the matter was remanded only to consider the issue of eligibility of refund. However, the original authority traversed beyond the scope of remand and again confirmed the differential duty. This has been taken note by the Commissioner (Appea....