TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is job worker of M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. and after carrying out the activity, they cleared goods to M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited paying excess duties on their clearance. Later on, the buyer of the goods found that they have paid excess duty, therefore, the debit notes on the appellant for excess payment of duty were issued and the excess duty recovered from the buyer have been shown in the balance sheet as payable to the buyer and buyer also shown the same in the balance sheet as recoverable from the appellant. The appellant filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But in the case of M/s Addison Co.Ltd. (Supra), there is clear cut finding of the Hon ble Apex Court recorded as under: 35. The respondent-Assessee is a 100 per cent Export oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing cotton yarn. The respondent filed an application for refund of an amount of ₹ 2,00,827/- on 14.08.2002 on the ground that it had paid excess excise duty at the rate of 18.11 per cent instead of 9.20 per cent. The Assessee initially passed on the duty incidence to its customers. Later the Assessee returned the excess duty amount to its buyers which was evidenced by a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant on 02.08.2002. the refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur Division vide a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee has borne the burden of duty, it cannot be said that it is not entitled for the refund of the excess duty paid. In view of the facts of this case being different from Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2002, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. As M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. has not taken the credit of excess duty claimed as refund by the appellant and the same has been certified by the Range Superintendent, in that circumstances, relying on the decision of the Addison Co. Ltd. (supra), I hold that the appellant is entitled for refund claim and as they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment. With these terms, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. ( Dictated and pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
