M/S Paper Packaging Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mysore

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 182/2003 dated 23/06/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), MANGALORE]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI 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? 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

M/s Paper Packaging Pvt Ltd KIADB Industrial Area, Manoli, SHIMOGA - 577201 KARNATAKA. Appellant(s) Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore S1-S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE  570011. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. S.R. Savant, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 01/09/2015 Date of Decision: 01/09/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21836 / 2015

PER ASHOK KUMAR ARYA

Both the parties have been heard.

2. This is an appeal filed by M/s Paper Packaging (P) Ltd., Shimoga against the order-in-appeal No. 182/2003-C.E. dated 23.06.2003, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the refund of Rs. 92,111/- which had been sanctioned by the lower authority namely, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Hassan vide his order-in-original No. 17/2002 dated 13.6.2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the refund amount of Rs. 92,111/- on the ground of unjust enrichment.

3. It is very strange that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the verification of the Range Officer of the Central Excise, who found that the appellant issued credit notes to all the concerned 18 dealers in respect of the excess duty earlier paid and charged from the said dealers. In other words, the appellant had passed the element of excess Central Excise duty benefit to the respective customers and the department clearly verified the said issue and established that there had not been any question of unjust enrichment as per the facts of the case. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been based on the facts on record and does not deserve sustainability under the eyes of the law.

3. It is unfortunate that for a small amount of Rs. 92,111/-, the appellant has been fighting the case for about last 20 years. From the facts on record and the discussion above, it is clear that there has been no unjust enrichment to the appellant namely, M/s Paper packaging Pvt. Ltd. and they deserve sanction of refund claim of Rs. 92,111/-. It is ordered that the refund amount of Rs. 92,111/- be sanctioned and paid to the appellant within 8 weeks from the day, the appellant approaches the Department of Central Excise for sanction of the said refund.

4. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefit and disposed of accordingly.

(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court)

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

/vc/