TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said goods is to be borne by the appellant and the appellant has charged only the MRP print price on their final goods and no evidence has been produced by the Revenue that the appellant has charged any amount over and above MRP price - whatever duty has been paid by the appellant and the same has been borne by the appellant only, therefore, question of bar of unjust enrichment does not arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.2007 to 08.07.2007 instead of 42.5%. On realisation the same, the appellant filed refund claim which were rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The sole ground taken by the Revenue is that as the amount of abatement has been increased for 01.02.2007 and the price of their goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties and considered the submissions. 5. The facts of the case are not in dispute that the appellant is clearing that goods on MRP basis and paying duty after availing abatement. As the amount of abatement has been increased, therefore, the appellant has paid excess duty. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The same is not applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n excess of the MRP printed thereon; in the absence of any such evidence. We are of the view that the order of the Adjudicating Authority in sanctioning the refund is correct and needs to be restored. 6. As the price of the said goods has been fixed by the drugs authority, therefore, whatever duty is payable on the said goods is to be borne by the appellant and the appellant has charged only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
