TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stenter and on this basis, the actual duty liability of the appellant became lower than the amount of duty paid by them. This has given rise to this refund claim. It is not disputed that the duty liability had been discharged by the appellant at the monthly rate determined on the basis of length of stenter which included the length of galleries and it is this duty which obviously has been recovered by the appellant from the principal manufacturers. There is no evidence produced to show that the appellant while paying duty at higher rate, had been recovering lower amount from their customers the principal manufacturers. - Decied against assessee. - E/478/2005 - Final Order No. A/886/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 30-7-2012 - Justice Ajit Bhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-original dated 30-1-2004 while rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 3,94,973/- held the refund of ₹ 48,24,325/- as admissible, but ordered its credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the same is hit by principle of unjust enrichment, as the appellant have not produced any evidence to prove that the incidence of duty whose refund is sought has been borne by them. The appeal against this order of the Dy. Commissioner was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 15-12-2004. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Udit Jain, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant are only a job worker who had process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt held that the length of galleries is not to be included in the length of stenter and on this basis, the actual duty liability of the appellant became lower than the amount of duty paid by them. This has given rise to this refund claim. It is not disputed that the duty liability had been discharged by the appellant at the monthly rate determined on the basis of length of stenter which included the length of galleries and it is this duty which obviously has been recovered by the appellant from the principal manufacturers. There is no evidence produced to show that the appellant while paying duty at higher rate, had been recovering lower amount from their customers the principal manufacturers. 6. In view of this, we agree with the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
