2005 (2) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t parts of the country. As the actual price to be sold from the depots is not known at the time of removal of goods from the factory gate, the appellants adopt the nearest prevailing value for the purpose of payment of duty. If the goods are cleared at a higher price from depot, they pay the differential duty and, if the clearance of the goods from depot is at a lower price, they claim refund of the differential duty. The department found that an amount of Rs. 5,56,581/- had been erroneously refunded to the appellants. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the said amounts, which was contested by the noticee. The original authority confirmed the demands of duty against the party and the first appellate authority ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3.  Mahabir Industries v. CCE, 2002 (140) E.L.T. 261. 3. Ld. SDR has, on the other hand, submitted that it was open to the department to recover an erroneously refunded amount of duty without recourse to review of the refund order. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court's decision in Re-Rolling Mills (supra) as well as the court's earlier judgment in UOI v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.). 4. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions. We shall straightaway consider the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling rendered in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati (supra). In that case, the assessee had obtained clearance of certain goods imported by them, under Section....