2003 (7) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e same? (ii)        Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the bar of unjust enrichment would not be attracted when the price is inclusive of duties and taxes following the case Cimmco Ltd. reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 246 (Tribunal)? (iii)       Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in passing the order ignoring the principles of law laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) and the findings of the department indicated in the order-in-original." 2.As will appear from the statement of facts, the respondent herein submitted two Refund Applications amounting to Rs. 3,53,268/- and Rs. 2,78,124/- to the Assist .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the decision in Cimmco Ltd. which was relied upon by the CEGAT, was distinguishable on facts, the Department filed the Reference Application for the determination of the questions of law as indicated hereinabove. 6.Appearing in support of the Reference Mr. Ramesh Chowdhury, learned Advocate submitted that whatever may have been agreed upon between the respondent Company and the Railways regarding the price of the goods supplied, the Excise Authorities were only concerned with the break up of the price component as indicated in the gate pass and in the bills raised in respect of the goods supplied. Mr. Chowdhury very strongly urged that the learned Tribunal had wrongly relied on its decision in Cimmco Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Exci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he said goods, only for the purpose of paying the excise duty under protest as in the instant case. Mr. Khaitan urged that the very fact that the excise duty had been paid under protest would indicate that the question of unjust enrichment was not attracted as has been sought to be submitted on behalf of the Department. 11.We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we are inclined to agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the manner of pricing resorted to by the respondent Company would not attract the bar of unjust enrichment. 12.However, there is some defect in the manner in which the questions have been framed in the reference, inasmuch as, the same have been framed on the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X