1997 (11) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : V.P. Gulati, Vice President]. - The issue in the appeal relates to rejection of the appellants' refund claim on ground of unjust enrichment. The appellants manufacture prestressed concrete poles and they were called upon to pay duty in respect of these poles of which was passed on by them to the Electricity Board. The appellants had recovered the duty element from the Electricity Board. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re embedded on the ground and were not sold to the customers. 3. Shri Rama Rao, learned DR for the department adopted the reasoning in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the issue before us is regarding eligibility of the appellants to receive the refund amount as claimed by them. The admitted position is that the duty burden has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en has been passed on to other person, the provisions of Section 11B would apply. In the present case, the factual position is that duty element had been passed on to the Electricity Board by receiving the quantum of duty. This position is not disputed. We therefore, hold that the appellants have been rightly ruled out of the benefit. The appeal is therefore, rejected.
Case laws, Decisions, Ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X