2025 (12) TMI 1460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tariff Act, 1985. The said product was cleared for home consumption, export, and on stock-transfer basis to their sister units at Mysore (Karnataka) and Sitarganj (Uttarakhand) for use in the manufacture of Dettol Antiseptic Liquid and Dettol Soap. For the period from 2009 to 2010, the Appellants resorted to provisional assessment under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, owing to fluctuations in the exchange rate of the imported raw material viz., Meta Xylenol. During the material time, both PCMX manufactured by the Appellants and the Dettol products manufactured by their sister units were subject to statutory price control under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, administered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals and Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India. 3. Dettol Antiseptic Liquid manufactured by the Appellants' sister unit at Mysore was not liable to excise duty, as it was an alcohol-based preparation falling under the purview of State Excise. The PCMX manufactured by the Appellants was also captively consumed by their sister units in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand for manufacture of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l-an aspect which was not examined. The statutory limitation must be computed from the date of despatch of the orders and not from the date of entry in the Internal Control (IC) Register of the Review Cell, as erroneously done. In support of this above contention, the Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Sarvan Safety Equipment (P) Ltd., 2020 (9) TMI 343 (CESTAT Chennai). ii. The impugned Orders-in-Appeal has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to furnish the documents specifically sought by the Appellants to demonstrate whether the review directions issued under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were within the prescribed period of three months. The refusal to supply the relied-upon records has deprived the Appellants of an effective opportunity to contest the maintainability of the Department's appeal. iii. The price of PCMX manufactured by the Appellants is subject to Government control. Accordingly, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application to the present case. The Ld. Counsel submits ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit by the Appellants' sister units for the relevant period. vi. The Ld. Counsel further submits that, in the Appellants' own case for the year 2006, refund arising out of the finalization order dated 10.08.2007 had been sanctioned by the Department on the very same issue. No appeal was preferred by the Department against the said refund sanction. It is therefore contended that the Department, having accepted the position for an earlier period, the department cannot take a contrary stand for a subsequent period on an identical issue. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar appeared and argued for the department. He reiterated the findings of the impugned order dated 23.10.2015. 8. Heard both the sides and carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Advocate and the Ld. Authorized Representative and also evidence as available in appeal records. 9. The primary issue to be determined is whether the refund sanctioned to the appellants is hit by the application of principle of unjust enrichment? 10. From the facts on record, it is evident that the PCMX manufactured by the Appellants was transferred only to their own sister units, as alrea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und of the excise duty paid on rectified spirit because the respondent has not passed on the duty to any consumer of the final product, viz., copper, manufactured by the respondent. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the price of copper has always been fixed by the Mineral & Metal Trading Corporation (MMTC) on the basis of the prevailing price fixed by the London Metal Exchange (LME) and this was done not only for the period in question but also for prior and subsequent period and that only such price could be charged and that no part of the duty in respect of rectified spirit captivity consumed in the manufacture of copper could be added to the price of copper which was fixed on the basis of the LME prices. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the aforesaid statement contained in the said affidavit. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the direction contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court regarding refund of excise duty paid by the respondent on import of rectified spirit used in the manufacture of copper. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs." 10. The said issue has been further examined b....