9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal to the extent it did not grant it refund of Rs. 93,445/- and instead upheld the credit thereof in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. When the case was called for personal hearing, no one appeared nor was any request received for adjournment. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. Appellant in its Memorandum of Appeal has essentially contended that the Asst. Commissioner of Customs initially assessed the goods provisionally and the provisional assessment was finalised vide Order-in-Original No.7/2006 dated 20.10.2006. The provisional assessment was made on 25.10.2005 and 11.07.2006 which was well before the amendment in section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC)]. 4. We have considered the facts of the case. It is not in dispute with the doctrine of unjust enrichment propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) became law of the land on the date the said judgement was pronounced. The ratio of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of CCE Vs. Allied Photographic India Ltd. (supra) wherein it was stated that the said doctrine is applicable even in case of finalisation of provisional assessment is applicable to the present case too. The appellant cited several judgements like in the cases of CC, Kandla Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri-LB)], CC Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been passed on to any other person squarely rests on the appellant. That burden cannot be deemed to have been discharged merely by saying that the price of the final products reduced after the import of the impugned goods because the price of the final product does not depend solely on the price of the impugned goods. Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Allied Photographic India Ltd. (supra) has also supported this view as is evident from its observation quoted below:- "Uniformity in price before and after the assessment does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer as such uniformity may be due to various factors." 6. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
