TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises for consideration in these appeals relates to the applicability of Rule 6 (a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 to such sales for the purpose of determining the value of the goods on which excise duty is leviable. 2.Prior to 4-10-1985, the respondent was selling the scooters directly to the buyers through their authorised representatives. After 4-10-1985, within the State of U.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was affirmed by the CEGAT. Hence, these appeals. 4.As a result of the orders of the CEGAT, the position is that for the period prior to 4-10-1985 valuation had taken place as per Rule 6(a) but for the subsequent period the price which was being charged by the respondent from their dealers in U.P. has been taken to be the value for the purpose of determining the excise duty. That price has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent on the basis of the decision of the CEGAT had filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court claiming refund of the excise duty. The High Court passed an interim order directing the refund but that order specifically stated that it was subject to the outcome of the writ petition which is still pending. 7.According to the appellant, the refund which has been taken by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mafatlal (supra) clearly postulate that the assessing authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner will have to determine on facts whether the refund, if granted, would result in unjust enrichment or not. If the respondent has realised excise duty from its customers at the higher value than the one which now stands determined as result of the CEGAT's order, then certainly the principle of unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
