2023 (9) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. R. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P and P medicines falling under chapter 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a rebate claim for an amount of Rs.5,55,950/- pertaining to the export of medicaments on payment of duty through CENVAT account. On scrutiny of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that during the period from July 2009 to October 2009, the appellant made exports on payment of duty under claim of rebate and preferred a rebate claim for Rs.5,55,950/- in respect of export made vide 5 file nos. ARE-1's. However, in the said covering letter claiming the rebate, the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....though sanctioned the refund of Rs.3,01,002/- has ordered to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund observing that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the overseas buyer. There was no whisper of the allegation of unjust enrichment in the Show Cause Notice. The appellant had submitted copies of the excise invoice, export invoice, shipping bill etc. before the adjudicating authority ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der of the adjudicating authority holding that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the foreign buyer is erroneous. The Ld. counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The Ld. AR Mr. R. Rajaraman appeared and argued for the department. The findings in the impugned order was reiterated. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The adjudicating authority though sanctioned the refund claim has ordered....