TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal that that the respondent assessee has paid the Central Excise Duty of ₹ 54,339/and ₹ 39,483/, after clearance of the excisable goods. Moreover, this payment of duty was on insistence of Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Department. Thus, it was held that the burden of duty was not passed on to its customers - no substantial question of law arises from the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue in view of the refund claim amount being treated as expenditure in the respondent's Profit and Loss Account, these forming part and parcel of the cost of production, thereby stand recovered from the customers. Therefore, sanctioning of the refund will lead to unjust enrichment. (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. There is no dispute on the assessee respondent being entitled to refund on merits. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the respondent's claim for Rs.54,339/and Rs.39,483/on the ground of unjust enrichment. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held as facts that the respondent assessee paid Central Excise Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs India Ltd., 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court laid down that doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' based on equity is invoked to deny a refund to person unless the person is able to show that he has paid the amount of which refund is sought without having passed on the burden to others. 8. The aforesaid decisions are distinguishable, as in this case there are concurrent find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
