TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yers - the assessee-Appellants have not submitted the relevant documents pertaining to the unjust enrichment - the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in the instant case - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos. 75611-75622 of 2014 - Final Order No. FO/A/77100-77111/2017 - Dated:- 31-8-2017 - Satish Chandra, President And V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellants : Sh. T. R. Rustogi, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. K. Chaudhari, DR ORDER Per Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra All the present appeals are filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 53/SH/CE(A)/GHY/13 dated 31.12.2013 46/SH/CE(A)/GHY/13 dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that : 16. In the instant case, the Assessee has admitted that the incidence of duty was originally passed on to the buyer. There is no material brought on record to show that the buyer to whom the incidence of duty was passed on by the Assessee did not pass it on to any other person. There is a statutory presumption under Section 12B of the Act that the duty has been passed on to the ultimate consumer. It is clear from the facts of the instant case that the duty which was originally paid by the Assessee was passed on. The refund claimed by the Assessee is for an amount which is part of the excise duty paid earlier and passed on. The Assessee who did not bear the burden of the duty, though entitled to claim deduction, is not entitled f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriety involved in such a proposition. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is, however, inapplicable to the State. State represents the people of the country. No one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, we find that in all the appeals, refund claim has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomers, then the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) appears reasonable who has also relied on various case laws, as mentioned in the impugned order. 9. Needless to mention that as per the Central Excise Act, 1944, the refund, if otherwise due on merits, will be granted to the assessee-Appellants only if they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers of their goods, otherwise, the refund due would be sanctioned and credited to the Customer Welfare Fund. Burden to prove that the assessee-Appellants have not passed on the tax incidence to buyers lies on the claimant. This provision was introduced w.e.f. 25.06.1999 and is applicable in the instant case. 10. From the record, it appears that the documents submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
