2014 (12) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue is in appeal against the decision of the Commissioner allowing the refund to the appellants. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants availed SSI exemption for 1999-2000 and after crossing the limit, they paid excise duty at full rate. The total turnover in that year was Rs. 6.69 crores and hence in the following year 2000-2001 the appellant became ineligible for availing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missioner (Appeals) also upheld the order of the lower authority. When they approached the Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Final Order No. 1981/2005 dated 23.11.2005 for examining the unjust enrichment aspect. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had pleaded that even if CENVAT credit is availed, the appellants can be allowed to avail Notification No. 9/2001 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned. He also relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Philips Electronics India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune [2010(257) E.L.T 257.(Tri-Mum)] to submit that just because the list price remains the same, it cannot be said that incidence of duty has not been passed on. It was held that bar of unjust enrichment cannot be got over on the sole ground of uniformity of price .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X