TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 13-3-1995 :- (i) Whether the Hon ble CEGAT is legally correct in holding that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise in the instant case, when the burden is cast on the Appellant to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person under the provisions of Section 11B read with Section 12B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944? (ii) Whether the Hon ble CEGAT is legally correct in placing reliance on judicial pronouncements as referred in the order while coming to a conclusion in the instant case that refund of duty paid on packing paper used captively for packing of the paper, sold to various customers, will not result in unjust unenrichment when all the decisions referred to are in respect of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not arise. Accordingly, I allow the Appeal with consequential relief to the Appellants. It is expected of the lower authorities in view of the period of claim, i.e. since 1983, that they would give consequential relief to the Appellant expeditiously . 4. Now, question (i) raised by the Collector is that when the burden is cast on the Appellant to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person under the provision of Section 11B read with Section 12B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, question of unjust enrichment does not arise is not a legally correct finding. Elaborating this question learned JDR points out that under the provision of Section 11B(1) an application in prescribed form is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion No. (ii). On the ratio of the decisions of various Courts including the case of Solar Pesticides, it has been held in those cases that the question unjust enrichment arises only in those cases when the duty paid goods are sold as such and not after any processing of those goods. This is also, apparent, as pointed out above, from the legal presumption made in Section 12B of the Act. In view of the foregoing, both the questions, as raised by the Collector, stand already decided by judgments of various High Courts one of which in turn relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of H.M.M. Limited v. The Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation (A.I.R. 1990 SC 47). Therefore, no question of law, as raised by the Collector in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
