TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest under section 35FF and it had not done so. Therefore, the respondent applied for refund citing section 11B. Section 11B is irrelevant to this case including the provisions of unjust enrichment in it. The impugned order is correct and needs to be sustained - appeal is dismissed. - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Authorised Representative Present for the Respondent: Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate ORDER Revenue filed this appeal to assail the Order-in-Appeal [Impugned order] dated 6.1.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal whereby he upheld the order-in-original dated 26.11.2019 passed by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) against the Assistant Commissioner s order sanctioning refund on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner failed to examine the question of unjust enrichment. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed Revenue s appeal. Revenue has now filed this appeal assailing the impugned order on the ground that the question of unjust enrichment as envisaged under section 11B of the Act was not examined by the lower authorities. 6. We have heard learned authorised representative of the Revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 7. According to the Revenue, before sanctioning the refund, the question of unjust enrichment as envisaged under section 11B should have been exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 5.9.2019. The respondent, thereafter, submitted a letter seeking refund under section 11B which was sanctioned. 9. The rebuttable legal presumption under section 11B that the burden of duty has been passed on to the buyers applies to duty alone and not to deposits, fine, penalty, etc. 10. Learned authorised representative submitted that the respondent could have passed on burden of the amount deposited to others and, therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment should apply in this case also. While it is true that if the respondent had collected the amount which it had deposited, from its customers representing them as excise duty, as per section 11D, the respondent had to deposit the same in the government account, there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
