Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIRefund - Unjust enrichment - Imported capital goods - Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the imported capital goods used captively for the manufacture of excisable goods - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] held that principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in case of captively consumed goods. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT] held that doctrine of unjust enrichment based on equity, has been accepted and applied in several cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act was similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss. In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we answer the question of law referred of the Larger Bench in favour of the Revenue by holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the imported capital goods used captively consumed for the manufacture of excisable goods. No other evidence is produced in the appeal in support of the claim by the appellant. In these circumstances and in view of the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court we find no infirmity in the impugned order the appeal is dismissed.
|