Page 203 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA 113

7. In the case in hand, it is acknowledged that there was no chance in
the price structure of the product immediately after payment of duty on protest.
Hence, in carrying forward the judicial decision set by this Tribunal the follow-
ing order is passed.
ORDER
8. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of
Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigarh vide
MKK/106/RGD APP/2018-19, dated 18-5-2018 is hereby set aside. The appellant
is entitled to get refund of Rs. 10,17,419/- along with interest as per Section 11BB
of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to be calculated from three months after filing of
the application of refund. The respondent-department is directed to pay the
same within three months from receipt of this order.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 7-2-2020)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 113 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. III]
S/Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)
RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA
Final Order No. A/10432/2020-WZB/AHD, dated 10-2-2020 in Application
No. C/Misc.(EH)/10838/2019 in Appeal No. C/13945/2013
Notification - Date of effect - Notification comes into effect on the day
it is published and offered for sale - Notification No. 120/2003-Cus. though
issued on 1-8-2003 and published on 1-8-2003 but offered for sale only on 4-8-
2003 - Bills of Entry being filed on 1-8-2003 therefore, the benefit of unamend-
ed Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. available to the appellant - Section 25(4)(a)(b)
of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.3]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
M.D. Overseas Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (353) E.L.T. 12 (Guj.) — Relied on ............... [Paras 2.1, 5, 6]
Param Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 2002 (150) E.L.T. 3 (Kar.) — Relied on ......... [Paras 2, 2.1, 5, 6]
Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj — 2000 (116) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.)
— Distinguished ..................................................................................................... [Paras 1, 2, 2.1, 4.3, 5]
Union of India v. M.D. Overseas Ltd. — 2017 (356) E.L.T. A136 (S.C.) — Relied on............... [Paras 2.1, 5]
Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd. — 2015 (321) E.L.T. 192 (S.C.) — Relied on ......... [Paras 2, 2.1, 5]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
M.F. (D.R.), Office Memorandum No. 336/4/2003-TRU, dated 9-10-2003 ...................................... [Para 1]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Sanjiv Kinker, Superintendent (AR), for the
Respondent.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  203