M/S. SPBL LIMITED Vs. CCE, JAIPUR-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals -II), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur. By the impugned order the appeal filed by the appellants against order of the adjudicating authority has been dismissed. The adjudicating authority by its order dated 31st July, 2002 while sanctioning the refund to the tune of Rs. 31,83,519/ - and Rs. 67,19,061/ - and rejecting the claim of Rs. 8,378/ - directed that the said amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of failure on the part of the appellant to discharge their burden regarding non -passing of duty liability to the consumer.

(3.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Processed Manmade Fabrics classifiable under Chapter 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985. They used to receive Grey Fabrics from various Grey Fabric suppliers and used to return the Processed Fabrics to the dealers on payment of duty on the basis of job work done and processed on such fabric procured by them. In terms of Trade Notice No. 18/CEX/2001/M -III dated 20.3.2001 issued by Bombay Commissionerate the appellants were paying duty on the assessable value arrived at on the basis of 115% of the cost of production, though subsequently pursuant to the issuance of the Boards Circular No. 610/10/2002 -CX dated 19.2.2002 it was settled that the duty liability on the processed fabrics payable would be on the basis of principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints Ltd., reported in 1989 (39) ELT 493 i.e. on the assessable value taking into account the landed cost of raw material plus job charges including actual profit margin. So, the appellants filed the refund claim. The adjudicating authority found that the claim to be admissible on merit and accordingly sanctioned the refund under the order. However, at the same time on the ground of bar of unjust enrichment, the adjudicating authority directed that the said amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. As the appeal against the said order failed the appellants have approached this Tribunal.