TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai evidencing amendment of the name of the company in the Certificate of Registration. After hearing both sides, we allow this application. Accordingly, the appellants' name wherever found in the memorandum of appeal stands changed to M/s. Saralee Household Bodycare Pvt. Ltd. 2.The appeal is against rejection of a refund claim for the period 1-3-92 to 12-11-95. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various products used for cleaning purposes. During the above period, they, under protest, classified their products under SH 3402.90 and paid duty at the applicable rate (30%), a fact evidenced by the relevant invoices. In the declaration filed by them, from time to time, they had claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods. 2.Learned Counsel submits that what was collected by the appellants from their buyers was only the price of the goods plus duty @ 20%, though duty at higher rate was indicated in the statutory invoices. The extra duty (10%) was retained as "receivable from Govt.", pending settlement of the classification dispute. It is submitted that this factual situation was clear from the contemporary accounts and the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant. The above presumption was effectively rebutted by producing these documents. In such circumstances, the refund claim should not have been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. In this connection, learned Counsel relies on the Tribunal's decision in Pride Foramer v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shing that the burden of duty had not been passed on to their buyers. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Chartered Accountant's certificates and books of account for the period of dispute were produced by the assessee to show that the Excise Duty paid in excess was retained as "receivables from Govt.". The lower authorities have not rebutted the authenticity of the documentary evidence adduced by the assessee. In the circumstances, as in the case of Pride Foramer (supra), we must hold that presumption of unjust enrichment under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act was successfully rebutted by the assessee. 5.In the result, the claim for cash refund of the excess Excise Duty requires to be allowed. It is ordered accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
