TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en sent to third party on the basis of such invoices, it cannot be said that the duty has been recovered from the buyers. In the circumstances, we find that the provisions of unjust enrichment cannot be invoked. - Decided against revenue - E/3667-3668/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 60107-60108/2016 - Dated:- 19-5-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Harvinder Singh, AR- for the appellant Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent ORDER The respondents M/s ICI India Ltd. paid excess excise duty due to the failure of computer software cleared to their depots. The invoices accordingly were issued to their own depots indicating higher payment of central excise. The respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tems as MRP. Further, the Supdt., Range-I, Mohali after through verification has submitted that printing of MRP on the items sold by the party on the basis of which the duty is paid by the party has no relation with the dealers price charged by them from the dealers. Thus the refund is admissible to the party as it has been checked from the records submitted by the party that they had not passed on the burden of duty to any other person and thus the unjust enrichment clause is not involved in this case. 4. He argued that the entire case records have been examined by the range officers in detail and only then refund was sanctioned. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also gone through the relevant price list and the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the price list, relevant invoices and the fact of payment of differential duty in r.o products for which the prices were increased, therefore, I do not interfere with the same. I do not find any substance in the Grounds urged by the revenue in the Appeal Memo rather the same have no relevancy to the issue being the claim pertains to rectification of an error only occurred due to computer failure. 5. He argued that the issue regarding admissibility of refund has been checked by the original authority as well as first appellate authority. He further argued that the goods were not cleared to third party to their own depots, therefore, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. 6. We find that so far as admissibility of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
