9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr.(A)/082/VDR/2003, date 3-3-03, by which the Commissioner upheld the order of original authority rejecting five refund claims. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) The appellant operated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The scope of unjust enrichment clause in Section 11B has been deliberated by Hon'ble High Court Madras in the case of Addison & Co. v. CCE, Madras reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.). The relevant portions are reproduced below : "8. It is significant that neither Section 11B or Section 12B of the Act refers to the consumer or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11B(2) manufacturer would be entitled to refund. Such refund cannot be denied on the ground that there was no evidence to show as to who the ultimate consumer of the product was and as to whether the ultimate consumer had been asked to bear the burden of the duty which had been initially paid by the manufacturer. 15. The language employed in Section 11B therefore not capable of being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normal circumstances is the buyer who buys the goods from the person who has paid duty." 5. In the light of above, the view taken by the original authority as upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) that the duty benefit claimed should have been passed to the ultimate customer is not envisaged. 6. It is, however, noticed that the aspect whether the duty burden was passed on by the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
