2005 (6) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The appellants' claim for refund of duty of Rs. 16,18,080/- covering the period 16-9-1985 to 31-12-87 and Rs. 36,91,313/- for the period 1-1-88 to 15-9-88 filed on 19-9-88 and 30-1-89 respectively have been rejected on the ground that the bar of unjust enrichment operates against them as they have passed on the duty burden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) [para 99 of the judgment which has upheld its decision in UOI v. Jain Spinners Limited - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] is squarely applicable and the appellants are therefore, required to cross the hurdle of unjust enrichment. There is no dispute that the duty burden has been passed on to their customers. Therefore, the refund amount has been correctly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X