Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 727 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRefund claim denied - doctrine of unjust enrichment - Held that:- In the instant case, the plastic pipes/tubes were cleared on payment of duty for captive consumption in the manufacture of Drip Irrigation System and the petitioner was not able to produce any documentary proof to establish that the duty has not been passed on to the buyer. In the judgment reported in Mafatlal Industries Vs. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that it is the responsibility of the assessee to establish that the duty incidence has not been passed on to any other customer. The order of the 3rd respondent is absolutely correct, since it is settled law that refund should not lead to unjust enrichment. That apart, the petitioner was not able to show any evidence that there was no change in the price of their final product with reference to the date of commencement of the period of refund of claim. Moreover, none of the invoices for the period prior to the period of dispute was made available to show that the price charged has been uniform throughout notwithstanding the payment of duty on the plastic tubes captively consumed. Merely because duty has been paid under protest does not give credence to the claim of the petitioner that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to their customer. In these circumstances, the ratio laid down in Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] and Mafatlal Industries Vs. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
|