2023 (3) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant have various depots located in multiple locations in India. The Lubricating Oil is removed to its depot on payment of Central Excise duty following the provisions of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002. On the basis of actual sale at depot comparable statements was made for computation of duty between the value adopted for clearance of goods from the factory and the value at which it was sold from depot and on the computation it was found that the appellant have paid the excess excise duty amount of Rs. 1,19,802/-. The said excess payment was on account of various discounts passed on from the depot as under: a) Special Discount b) Cash Discount c) Trade Discount d) Free oil Discount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f of the Appellant submits that both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim merely on the ground that the appellant have not opted for the provisional assessment. He submits that this is not an allegation made in the show cause notice, therefore, on this ground refund could not have been rejected. He in support that the order should not travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice, relied on the following judgments:- • Ballarpur Industries Ltd - 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) • ST Electricals Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 (20) GSTL 273 (Tri.- Mumbai) • Dow Chemicals International Pvt. Ltd - 2019 (370) ELT 1302 (Tri.- Ahmd) 2.1 Without prejudice, he also submits that the refund of excess payment of dut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ivision, Belapur Commisssionerate in identical case of another unit of the appellant wherein held that the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply. He submits that the issue has been settled in the appellant's own case and in their sister unit . he further submits that the judgment relied upon by the Revenue in the case of M/s. MRF Limited - 1997 (92) ELT -309 (SC) is clearly distinguishable and hence not applicable. 3. Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order . 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant have made excess payment of duty on account of discount. The di....