Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Wep Peripherals

E/1201/2004-DB, E/1202/2004-DB, E/1203/2004-DB, E/1204/2004-DB, E/1205/2004-DB, E/1206/2004-DB, E/1207/2004-DB, E/1208/2004-DB,

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 307/2004 dated 27/07/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 324/2004 dated 02/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 326/2004 dated 04/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 327/2004 dated 04/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 356/2004 dated 26/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 375/2004 dated 06/09/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore]

For approval and signature: HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore S1-S2, Vinaya Marga, Siddhartha Nagar, Mysore  570 011 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus

Wep Peripherals 312, 313, Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore - 16 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N. Jagdish, DR For the Appellant

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA Hiregange & Associates No. 1010, 26th Main, Above Corporation Bank, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore  560 041 For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 09/09/2015 Date of Decision: 09/09/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order Nos. 21902-21909 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in all of them is identical.

2. The appellant was clearing its final product from the factory gate on an assessable value on which duty was being discharged by them accordingly. Subsequently in some cases the value came down and the goods were sold from depot at a lesser price. The duty charged by them from their customer is also on the lesser price. Accordingly the appellant claimed refund of the excise duty paid by them at the factory gate.

3. It may not be out of place to mention that in some cases the value at the depot was higher than the factory gate in which case they were paying differential duty. The refund claim by the appellant was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the point of unjust enrichment. In some cases it was rejected by the original adjudicating authority and in one case he sanctioned. However on appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) he held in favour of the assessee on the point of unjust enrichment. It is seen that earlier also Revenue had filed identical appeal against some earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) and one such appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal reported as Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore Vs. WEP Peripherals Ltd. [2008 (226) E.L.T. 751 (Tri.-Chennai)], rejecting the Revenues appeal. In another case of the same assessee where the order of the lower authorities was against them, their appeal before the Tribunal was allowed reported as WEP Peripherals Ltd. Vs. CCE (Appeals-II) Hyderabad [2007 (213) E.L.T. 18 (Tri.-Bang.)].

4. Inasmuch as issue is settled by the above referred decision of the Tribunal and the present appeals by the Revenue are nothing but an extension of the earlier appeal filed by them, we, by following the earlier order reject all the appeals filed by the Revenue.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss