TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade before us. The issue in the above appeals are common relating to the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment against the grant of refund in favour of the respondent. As rightly contended by the learned SDR, Sec. 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not be applicable only if the duty and interest paid on such duty paid by the respondent or the person concerned had not been passed on to any other person and in the present case, in the absence of any precise finding it would not be possible to hold that the duty and the interest if any paid thereon had not been passed on merely on the basis of the fact that the respondent incurred losses by reason of the difference between the landing cost and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 7,59,584/-. Similarly, in the case of Siddharth International, the landed cost was Rs. 24,83,890/- and have been sold at a price of Rs. 23,02,007/- thus they have been sold at a loss of Rs. 1,81,883/- whereas the duty involved was only to the extent of Rs. 1,95,139/-. The ld. Counsel has therefore submitted that in the sale of mulberry raw silk, the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customer and the same has been borne by them. They had produced before the departmental authorities the sales bills, accounts ledgers, balance sheet and the certificate of Chartered Accountant and after verifying all these documents, the figures stated by them as well as by the Chartered Accountant has not been disputed by the department. The on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t passed on incidence of such duty to any other person. The Hon ble High Court also held that the manufacturer is not liable to produce evidence to show as to who the ultimate consumer was or whether such consumer had borne the burden of duty. It has been held further that the Tribunal s order rejecting the manufacturers refund claim solely on his inability to produce such evidence was held to be erroneous and was set aside. Ld. Counsel further submits that he has discharged his burden of bearing the incidence of duty and he cannot produce to the department the books of accounts of the consumers to whom they have sold the goods. 4. The ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran while reiterating the findings of the ld. Commissioner has stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
