2008 (10) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion No. 63/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95. They successfully agitated this claim before the Commissioner (Appeals). They claimed refund of the exemption they had not availed in terms of the above Notification. An amount of Rs, 43,846/- was claimed. The original authority sanctioned the refund but ordered to credit the same in the Consumer Welfare Fund. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority. He found that the order of the original authority was in accordance with law and that the same was passed following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.-Del.). Like in the instant case, in the case dealt with by the Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions relied upon by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly relied on the ratio of the Ballarpur Industries Ltd. case (supra) in upholding the decision of the original authority. 3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both sides. There is no dispute that the appellants had not received the amount of duty charged by it in the relevant invoices from its buyer, M/s. BEML. In the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in S. Kumar's case (supra), it was held that when the assessee had not collected the duty amount from its buyer initially, its subsequent claim for the same amount paid to the revenue was not hit by the principle of unjust enrichment. In Alstom Ltd. case, a decision up....