A.K. SPINTEX Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) Revenue filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) held that principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in respect of the refund claim of the respondents.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of M.M. Fabric with the aid of hot air stenter. The annual capacity of production of hot air stenter was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The respondents filed a declaration for determination of their annual capacity of their stenter without including the length of galleries. The annual capacity Excise taking into consideration the length of galleries. The respondents paid differential duty under protest and challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise fixing capacity of the stenter including length of galleries. The Tribunal set aside the order and held that the annual capacity of the stenter is to be fixed without considering the length of galleries.