2008 (12) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-08 after the respondents received the papers they had requested for. Today also, the respondents are not represented. As it is an old pending case, the same is taken up for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HUL, for short), the respondents herein had imported a consignment of crude palm oil and cleared the same under warehousing Bill of Entry. On 30-10-01, the Customs duty leviable on crude palm oil was reduced from 75% ad valorem to 65% ad valorem. The respondents cleared a quantity of 329.072 MTs of the crude palm oil that remained in the warehouse after 30-10-01, paying the customs duty at the pre-revised rate of 75% ad valorem. They had thus paid excess duty of Rs. 4,45,634/- erroneously. The refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....170.56 per tonne compared to Rs.1394/- allowed for oil sold in packages of 1000 ml. The Commissioner (A) held that this amount was allowed by the respondents to offset the incidence of the differential duty @ 10% adv suffered by inputs that went into the final products manufactured from the 329.072 tonnes. As the excess duty paid by the respondents was @ Rs.1354/- per tonne he held that the excess discount to the extent of Rs.183.65 per tonne was allowed to offset the duty wrongly paid in excess. This amount worked out to Rs. 60,434/- for the 329.072 tonnes and the impugned order allowed this amount as refund finding that granting the same did not involve unjust enrichment. 4. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the basis that....