TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2008 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, K.K. Agarwal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A. Shreezi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.G. Dewalwar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. The present appeal is regarding denial of refund claimed by the appellants amounting to Rs. 20,78,502.03 on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The matter has a chequerd history and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the customers. However, the appellants went in Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court which directed the revenue to deposit the refund claim of Rs. 11,61,263.18 with the prothonotary and senior master of Bombay High Court and the appellants withdrew the said amounts. The matter was thereafter readjudicated wherein the appellants produced evidence in the form of invoices in respect of the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the appellants submitted that in this case the incidence of duty was never passed on to the customers as they maintained the same price both before the imposition of duty and subsequent to the imposition of duty, as was evidenced from the invoices submitted by them and, therefore, the question of passing of incidence of duty does not arise. He, however, admitted that though earlier s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount was shown under the heading sundry creditors, and this amount of Rs. 20,78,502.03 was shown as receivable and as a sundry creditors. The same was the situation in the balance sheets for March, 1997, etc. However, the appellants were unable to show the treatment of the amount of Rs.11,61,263.18 recovered as Central Excise duty in their balanee sheet for the relevant years as to whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Once gate passes clearly shows that the duty has been recovered from the customers, there is no need of looking into the balance sheet for the years 1989-1991 to find out as to whether the duty so paid was considered as a receivable or not, especially when the ld. Advocate for the appellants admits that these balance sheets were never produced or considered. We, therefore, hold that when the gate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
